Why am I on this Forum?

[edhopper]

Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I was asked this in another thread.

I am a hard atheists, I see very little chance of there being any gods and the very idea contradicts what we do know about the Universe. So I am not looking for a way to get back my "faith".

I also don't suppose I will dissuade any believers here, though occasionally people come here seeking answers.

I guess it's that I find the topic interesting and can have a no holds barred discussion about religion, belief and God.

It is difficult and at times harmful to domestic tranquility to discuss religion among family and friends.

But everyone here wants to talk about it, so the social convention against it is negated.

We can discuss, argue and debate a subject that interests me, that's the gist of it.

Any thoughts or reasons of your own?

[tecelote]

1. I used to be an atheist.

Then I read about the Greek and Roman Gods.

The idea of a bunch of immortals playing with and laughing at us makes sense to me.

Otherwise, we're responsible for our own mess and that makes us all idiots.

[edhopper]

2. Not sure if you are being facetious

but I always thought the Pantheon gods made more sense of the world than the One Loving God that lets billions suffer.

[tecelote]

3. Partly facetious.

I agree though. At least Gods fighting among themselves answer a lot of questions about why things are as they are.

[edhopper]

4. Jealous

Petty Gods. Sounds right to me.

[hunter]

5. It's all story.

What you suffer is a story you will tell when you are in a place where you are not suffering.

Ethically it's the duty of each and every one of us to prevent the suffering of others.

When all suffering ends then the universal story is over. Everyone lives happily ever after and it's time to create a new universe. Or not.

We humans haven't even scratched the surface of this universe.

This universe is very big and we humans are very small.

All I ask when I am gone is to leave a story.

If there's no story there, make something up.

Don't let it be something like this:

I've stepped on worse than ping pong balls.

Lost my left testicle, in fact...

[cbayer]

8. From what I have seen of you, I think there will be a lot of stories.

Stories are good. Stories are history.

If nothing else, religion provides some pretty good stories.

[hunter]

44. My childhood holidays were scenes of family religious warfare.

It wasn't truly Christmas until there was a brawl about how or even if the holiday should be celebrated.

The trouble was that not every Christmas was like that. Sometimes the adults established some kind of temporary peace and Christmas was tense, but not horrible. Nobody left the celebration angry and bleeding. Other times it would be full scale religious war, everyone leaving wounded in some way.

If it had been one way or the other every year when I was a kid, instead of unpredictable, I might have learned how to anticipate the holiday season with good cheer and not the dread I begin to feel each time this year. To have one's hopes for a happy holiday randomly shot down as a child is more difficult than never having any hope to begin with.

[cbayer]

49. My experience was pretty much the opposite.

Tolerance was a key concept and discussion could be very lively, but never hurtful.

It is so foreign to me that I can only imagine it as something I might see in a movie.

Your description is very poignant and I feel sad at what you had to endure as a child.

My wish for you is that you are able to establish new traditions as an adult and create a different experience for the children that might be in your life.

[Iggo]

12. There's a song in there somewhere.

[edhopper]

13. I think it would be by

The Moody Blues.

[cbayer]

9. You have a very interesting name and avatar.

If I am reading it correctly, you are from an area that is seeped in indigenous religious beliefs and a deep catholicism.

What do you think of those?

[rug]

6. Is your premise that there is a reason or are you asking if there is a reason?

[edhopper]

34. A reason for being in

the Religion Forum, not about life in general.

[cbayer]

7. A few questions.

What is a "hard" atheist?

How does the very idea of god contradict what we know about the universe?

You say you don't suppose you will dissuade any believers here, but why would you want to?

[edhopper]

11. Never mind "hard"

just threw in an adjective.

No evidence of any supernatural component to the Universe, The Universe works and is explainable without a supernatural entity, claims of what gods do or have done aren't unsupported, etc... We've been through this before.


I think that the letting go of superstition and embracing reality is of benefit to all.

[cbayer]

15. Agree that there is no convincing evidence of the supernatural, though

others would disagree.

Where we differ is in your presumption that we know how the universe works and that it is explainable without a supernatural entity. I think that position is both naive and arrogant.

I would suggest that sentiment beings have thought that as long as there have been sentiment beings, and they ended up being wrong most of the time.

We may have been through this before, but I don't find this a convincing argument at all.

I just watched Blackfish. It's a movie about the Orca whales in Seaworld. I bring this up because our assumptions about them as recently as just a few years ago have been terribly, terribly wrong. People, including scientists, believed that they knew the truth. They had evidence, for god's sake. They were embracing reality.

They were absolutely wrong.

That is the kind of naivety and arrogance I speak of.

Embracing "reality" is all well and good when it is crystal clear what that is, but I'd say 9 times out of 10, it's not.

[edhopper]

16. Again

no evidence of anything supernatural and contrary to what we do know. And contrary to what we know about how the Universe works, A supernatural premiss violates the laws we do know.
It would take overwhelming evidence to support such a premiss, more than some people just believe.

Nothing in your example violated what we know about biology, oceanography or physics.

People, including scientist, had limited information of Orca behavior, new information came to light and somethings changed.

Did they decide orcas aren't whales or can fly, or they live in the carribean?

And notice they changed their views with new scientific information, something believers seem very reluctant to do.


We don't know everything, so God, is just a God of the gaps argument. Even if it is just, so maybe God.

[cbayer]

17. You have failed to show me what is contrary.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. If science rejected theories on the basis of there being no evidence, we would be in quite a pickle.

Since we really know so very, very little about anything, making a statement that a supernatural premise violates the "laws" that we do know is not valid.

Supernatural implies that is does not conform to the things we currently understand.

Orcas aren't whales, so there you have it. Sometimes one can be very wrong about what they think they know.

[edhopper]

18. I don't know jack about orcas

never claimed to.

They are in the dolphin/whale family, happy?

Yes science does, the ether, n-rays, the rate of proton decay, things rejected due to lack of evidence.


Could you name something we currently don't understand that could have a supernatural explanation?

[cbayer]

19. They are dolphins.

I only bring this up because a lot of times we think we know something and we don't.

Leaving all the doors open whenever possible is the wisest choice, imo. It's particularly good science.

If I gave you a blank piece of paper and told you it represented everything that was know by humans, and then asked you to indicate with a circle how much of that knowledge you had, what size would it be?

If I then told you it represented everything known and not yet known by humans, what size would your circle be then.

The definition of supernatural is tripping you up here. To me it indicates that the explanation for something is not yet known because of our limited information base. I don't entirely dismiss that there may be a very natural explanation for what humans have considered god or gods. I neither endorse nor reject the concept, I just don't know.

Thunder and lightening were once supernatural. Viral infections were once supernatural. Good scientists never rule things out just because they don't yet have the evidence. They rule them out when a better explanation becomes available or data confirms that something does not occur or exist.

I could give you tons of examples of things we don't understand. I think our ability to understand is pretty unlimited, but they will laugh at our current ideas in 1000 years. They might even call our current scientific "laws" supernatural.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Dafuq!?

"Thunder and lightening were once supernatural. Viral infections were once supernatural. Good scientists never rule things out just because they don't yet have the evidence. They rule them out when a better explanation becomes available or data confirms that something does not occur or exist."


HOLY COGNITIVE DISSONANCE batman!

It's ok for people to conclude without evidence that XYZ is supernatural, but NOT ok for people to assume as a starting point, that something is NOT supernatural?

One side can make a presumptive claim, and the other cannot? When one is claiming something that cannot be proven, and the other is simply NOT assuming something that cannot be proven?

GTFO with that bullshit.

[edhopper]

27. That is

and has always been one of the weakest argument for God.

The last person i saw give it was Dan Brown, it was weak then as well.

Leaving the door open for something that violates everything we do know isn't wise and it isn't science.

Those things you mentioned were never supernatural. It was just the explanation of people who had no understanding of what they were.
Or do you think those supernatural explanations were true and are still true.

[cbayer]

29. As I am not making an argument for god at all, I do not know what part of my

post you are addressing.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

It is your assumption that if there is a god, it violates everything we know that is very problematic. That indicates that you have defined or described this thing called god, this thing that you claim to not believe in at all. Otherwise, you couldn't possibly know what it might or might not violate.

Leaving doors open is extremely wise and it is what drives science. Slamming doors shut is a big problem and leads to literalism, stagnation, dogmatism and fundamentalism.

You don't believe, but are you gnostic about what is called god?

It is those that think they know that have the most inner doubts about their position, imo.

"I think the lady does protest too much" comes to mind.

[edhopper]

32. I'll leave it at that

we are getting into concepts that whole books deal with.

They aren't really well handled in short back and forths.

I also think we might be talking about slightly different things at times, which would lead to answers of questions not asked.

People like Dennet and Stenger have written great books that explain this better than I ever could.

[LostOne4Ever]

20. That kind of depends on what you mean by the word whale

Orcas are more closely related to Dolphins than something like the blue whale, but both Dolphins and Orcas are classified as toothed whales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"] The killer whale (Orcinus orca), also referred to as the orca whale or orca, and less commonly as the blackfish or grampus, is a toothed whale belonging to the oceanic dolphin family. Killer whales are found in all oceans, from the frigid Arctic and Antarctic regions to tropical seas. Killer whales as a species have a diverse diet, although individual populations often specialize in particular types of prey. Some feed exclusively on fish, while others hunt marine mammals like pinnipeds, and even large whales. Killer whales are regarded as apex predators, lacking natural predators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothed_whale

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"] The toothed whales (systematic name Odontoceti) form a suborder of the cetaceans, including sperm whales, beaked whales, dolphins, and others. As the name suggests, the suborder is characterized by the presence of teeth rather than the baleen of other whales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]The order Cetacea /sɨˈteɪʃ(i)ə/ includes the marine mammals commonly known as whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Cetus is Latin and is used in biological names to mean 'whale'. Its original meaning, 'large sea animal', was more general. It comes from Ancient Greek κῆτος (kētos), used for whales and other huge fish or sea monsters. Cetology is the branch of marine science associated with the study of cetaceans. An ancient ancestor of the whale, Basilosaurus was thought to be a reptile until vestigial parts were recognized.[2]

If you consider Odontoceti different than Mysticeti (your traditional bleen whale) then you are completely right, but that means that you would have to exclude sperm whales as well.

It is kinda like the argument over tomatoes. Scientifically they are fruits, but if you use the culinary definition it is a vegetable. So it really depends on what one means when one says "whale."

[cbayer]

23. I think they are dolphins and think the wiki entries are confusing.

While dolphins and whales are in the same order, they are in distinctly different families.

The big separation is between baleen whales and toothed whales. Dolphins technically fall into the category of toothed whales, but are never referred to as whales. You are correct that sperm whales are also technically in the dolphin family.

Orcas acquired the most unfortunate nickname of Killer Whale.

They have never been known to kill humans outside of captivity and they are dolphins.

They are, however, very aggressive dolphins when it comes to getting dinner or protecting their family.

If you haven't seen Blackfish and you are not squeamish about seeing very tragic interactions between Orcas and humans, take a look.

One of the most fascinating things I learned is that Orcas have a very large brain area that humans do not have. It is thought to be an area of highly evolved emotion. It is suggested that they are actually much more intelligent than we are in certain ways.

[LostOne4Ever]

24. I saw blackfish and really liked it

As a kid I had a fascination with sharks and the sea life around them.

So I was quite surprised to learn that Great Whites, who I thought were apex predators, are in fact, preyed upon by orcas (the true apex predator of the sea). But like you say, orcas don't prey upon humans.

Other things I learned as a kid I found fascinating is that Great Whites give birth to live young and are able to maintain an internal body temperature similar to warm blooded animals, and as you were trying to point out, Orca's are a type of dolphin. Of course when I said that no one believed me...oh well.

It is all really quite interesting.

[cbayer]

25. I am extremely fortunate to see dolphins and whales in their natural habitat all winter long.

I always hated the very idea of SeaWorld and have never visited one. I can't imagine that someone could see these animals in the wild and not see how caging them is reprehensible.

They are mammals, of course, and as the movie says, we will look back at this Sea World era and recognize that we, as humans, did something terribly wrong.

[Leontius]

22. The Universe works and is explainable except it isn't.

We know it's there, it makes all the models work but we can't see it, we don't know what it really is but without it current models are not workable. Dark energy, physics new god?

[edhopper]

26. So a supernatural God

is as good an explanation to you as dark matter. Whether it be WIMPs or SIMPs?

[Leontius]

36. If you're going only on empirical provable data yes it is.

Dark matter is still just a mystery we have no explanation for only speculation but without placing it in the models of the universe we now have there is a giant unexplained whole in the universe, it just doesn't work as expected. With or without God you still have the problem but for the record I'm not saying God is the answer.

[edhopper]

38. But the mysteries

don't need an intelligent supernatural agency to explain them.

They need a better understanding of cosmological and particle physics.And there is nothing that points to an answer elsewhere.

[Leontius]

45. And at no point have I said that's the answer even though you may want that to be my answer

The fact is there may be no dark matter there may be another answer to the puzzle that no one has been able to conceive yet that explains what is going on only time will tell .

[edhopper]

50. I didn't

My response needed better punctuation, maybe a question mark. Or a "Right?" thrown in.
It was meant as a conformation. Hard without the right tone.

[Leontius]

57. Fair enough sometimes it's hard to agree on what we agree about because of

the lack of keys we use in personal verbal communications when exchanging words thru the ether.

[edhopper]

59. BTW

My in OP I was just describing my position as briefly as possible, using a shorthand that I thought people here would understand.

Though what you brought up is worthy of discussion, I wasn't trying to make a declarative statement on the nature of the Universe.

[Leontius]

64. Wasn't trying to hijack your thread

The truth is I usually find the side discussions more interesting than main ones. I tend to find some of the posts here much more diverse and honest than the group think party line spiels in many posts on DU.

[edhopper]

68. I do as well

And i am as much a hijacker as anyone.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. If you are going to define god as anything physics doesn't currently have an explanation for,

a "god of the gaps", that is fine, we can call that "god", except you can't then turn around and ascribe to this ever dwindling lack of understanding all the ancient baggage of the other commonly understood meanings of the word "god". To do so would be dishonest.

[Leontius]

65. That is as far from my belief in what God is as you can imagine.

god, idol, totem, philosophers' stone, hypothesis, theory, guess call it what you like.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Sorry I guess I must have mistranslated this word salad:

We know it's there, it makes all the models work but we can't see it, we don't know what it really is but without it current models are not workable. Dark energy, physics new god?

[rug]

67. Yes, you did.

Work on that.

[hunter]

53. It's nuts to believe the Universe is "explainable."

The Universe is very big and the human mind is very small.

Human belief in supernatural entities doesn't affect the universe one way or another, nor does it necessarily interfere with scientific investigation and "explanation."

The only religions I reject are those that shut down human inquisitiveness and creativity, especially in the sciences, and those that violate the human rights of individuals who decide to practice other religions or no religion at all.

I think religion is fascinating. My mom stormed through several religions when I was a kid, dragging my dad, me and my siblings along. When I was in school she was a Jehovah Witness, and then a Quaker so I was spared the daily Pledge of Allegiance religious nonsense which made me more of an outsider than I am naturally.

[edhopper]

54. It's nuts to believe the Universe is not explainable

That doesn't mean we aren't far from explaining a lot, nor that we will explain it all.
But it is knowable.

What humans do affects the Universe, it's just that it affects only a very, very, very small part of it.

I won't go near the statement that belief in the supernatural doesn't interfere with science. Maybe some one else will give it a whirl.

[bvf]

73. Well,

to begin with, the premise that "it's nuts to believe the universe is 'explainable'" (why the quotes around "explainable"?) is at odds with this:

"The only religions I reject are those that shut down human inquisitiveness and creativity, especially in the sciences, and those that violate the human rights of individuals who decide to practice other religions or no religion at all."

Religion, even if it does not shut down human inquisitiveness* altogether, always carries the inherent message that there are things that cannot be known, and so works against scientific curiosity to some extent. Hence the conclusion among some that "it's nuts to believe the universe is 'explainable'."

Agree with you that the universe is knowable.


*theological "scholarship" notwithstanding.

[edhopper]

10. It appears my title

Was misleading to what I was actually asking.

Not the existential why are we here, why do we come to the Religion Forum.

[pinto]

14. Don't post much but like many of the discussions and have a keen interest in the role religion plays

in our lives, one way or another. Am very interested in separation of church / state issues. I like the group. Not looking to dissuade or convince anyone of anything here; I like the back and forth for the most part.

[edhopper]

28. Thanks

I thought this would be a thread were people just shared their thoughts and personal look at it.


Guess not

[cbayer]

30. What in the world do you see wrong with the way this thread is going?

What is happening that is not sharing thoughts and personal takes on it?

Did you just expect that everyone would agree with you?

[edhopper]

31. I don't mind the back and forth

But my intention was for people to just talk about their personal interest in this thread.


It just seems I only got one or two replies to the OP about why people join in here.

But threads go where they want.

[cbayer]

33. Aw, c'mon. Your very first post in the thread was about gods and not about why you were here.

I always thought the Pantheon gods made more sense of the world than the One Loving God that lets billions suffer.

And most of the posts you have made since them do the same. You brought the thread in this direction and you can't now say it's not going as you had anticipated.

[edhopper]

35. That was in response to the first poster

and it was all tongue in cheek. Did you not see the word "facetious"?

The rest were in direct response to you, who challenged my opinion in the OP from the get go.

You didn't give a personal account, you just had a problem with my POV.

That is all fine, but please don't put this on me.

[cbayer]

46. It being in fun and tongue in cheek was not what I was pointing out.

As the OP, you do have sway over how the thread goes.

I had no problem at all with your POV. I merely asked you some questions about what you said. You have said that you like to challenge people and that you came to your atheism by being challenged. So what is the issue if I ask some questions that you experience as challenging?

Since I don't see anything wrong with this thread at all, there is nothing to put on you.

I think I've given you my personal account previously on many occasions, but I will answer your question.

We are in agreement on several reasons we come here and on this in particular:

I guess it's that I find the topic interesting and can have a no holds barred discussion about religion, belief and God.

It is difficult and at times harmful to domestic tranquility to discuss religion among family and friends.

But everyone here wants to talk about it, so the social convention against it is negated.

We can discuss, argue and debate a subject that interests me, that's the gist of it.

Additionally I think religion can be used to build coalitions or it can be used as a wedge issue. I would like it to be the first option.

I think that anti-theists and anti-atheists divide members of this board and liberal/progressive people in general. That's not good for our shared goals.

Most importantly, I think believers and non-believers have a mutual enemy in the religious right and that is a great platform to build coaltitions.

In general, I think there is good discussion that tends to highlight what participants in here have in common, rather than what they see differently.

Any questions?

[edhopper]

48. Thanks

I appreciate the response.

There's no problem. I didn't see this thread as one where people's reasons for involvement would be questioned.

Rather just a "I here because" thing. No drama.

But I know threads take turns of their own, so if that was your reaction, that's cool.

[safeinOhio]

37. You could say I'm not religious even

though I go to a UU church most Sundays and never mis a party. I just like the detached study of religion. I have no idea if there is a higher power and could care less. I do lean toward Eastern ideas, of which most are atheist for the most part. I would call myself a humanist as I would always put humans above gods. I have polite respect for most religious people, unless they are fundamentalist, then I like to argue scripture with them. I find most have no idea what the Bible says and that makes it lots of fun. I really like this group because it is so active.

[edhopper]

39. Thanks

were are an active lot. That probably has something to do with it. Keeps it lively.

[LostOne4Ever]

40. I don't know

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]I swore not to come back here again, but here I am trying to give this place another chance. I guess, (as one poster I am sure is just dying to point out) this makes me inconsistent hypocrite. Oh well, to Quote Emerson:[/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]I like posting here and the related groups because I don't get to discuss these things much in my offline life. I also like talking about religious themes because there are so many more nuances to it.

My big issue is LGBTQ rights, but I don't post in that group as much as I like because I feel like all I am doing there is nodding my head. Saying, "yes I agree" to everything, and not contributing much. Yes it is possible to talk about more than that there, but I find it difficult.

Here in the Rel.& Spirit groups there seems to be enough nuances to have much better discussions. Though, sad to say, a part of that is probably due to the contentions between the various warring factions in here. I am hoping that one, or two, or a dozen ignores to the most intolerable members makes this place tolerable this time around.

That and being more selective when I do decide to post here.

PS:
Oh, and since some people take exception to it I guess I should mention my font. I like posting in this font. If you can't stand it, please just ask me (nicely)to use the normal font when replying to you and I will oblige.[/font]

[edhopper]

41. Thanks

I don't hate the font, but it is harder to read.

[LostOne4Ever]

42. If I increased the size

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=5 color=teal]Do you think that would help?

[edhopper]

43. It's not the size

I guess it's just that it's different, so you become aware of it, making it not as natural to read.

But if it makes you happy, leave it smaller. The large text doesn't work for longer replies.

[cbayer]

47. Who do you think is dying to call you an inconsistent hypocrite?

[LostOne4Ever]

51. Someone I have on ignore

I know they would make a comment about it so I thought I would respond preemptively and move on.

Since I am giving this room a new start, I would rather not go into it much further. It was not directed at you in anyway, but given our recent rough patch I would not blame you if you thought otherwise.

Someone else.

[cbayer]

52. Ok, I thought you might be talking about me and I wanted to straighten that out.

I don't think that about you.

Glad to see you back around. I think you have a great deal to offer and I think your passion generally drives you in a positive direction.

We have differences, I know, but I promise to make every effort to be civil and understanding. If I am missing that mark, please let me know.

[LostOne4Ever]

55. Thanks

No, it was not you. I promise.

Despite being a big proponent of logic and skepticism, I am a passionate person and without the filter of my social anxiety that does get me in trouble a bit online. It has made me more than a few enemies before on message boards, and it will make me more in the future.

Who knew constantly feeling like your on a verge of a panic attack when dealing with strangers in the offline world would have a positive benefit?

I will make the same effort as you, and if I feel a discussion between us is going south I will try to let you know or at the least dismiss myself from those conversations. Hopefully, we will have polite exchanges like we did above about sea life.

お休み
Oyashumi
Have a good night.

[cbayer]

56. I think that message boards do provide a degree of socialization that is not readily available

to some in the real world. The challenges of the lack of physical and verbal cues can be met and a whole new way of communicating developed.

I look forward to future conversations as well.

Hast luego. You have a good night as well.

[stone space]

60. Who?

I guess, (as one poster I am sure is just dying to point out) this makes me inconsistent hypocrite.

[stone space]

61. No particular reason. I just stumbled across this forum one day.

I post here because I can, I suppose. Just like any internet forum I stumble across.

If my job didn't require me to use the internet, I'd probably post much less.

But once I go online, every internet forum that I've ever found is merely a click away, and sometimes I am actively trying to put off my real work.

Especially if I have exams to grade. That's when my posting rate really jumps.

As a militant atheist, I do get annoyed at some of the weird myths out there about us. As if we go around burning churches or something.

At times it feels like some folks here think of us as the enemy.

I've even been accused of using violence against a fellow poster here, but if one points out that this is a lie, one risks having their post hidden for daring to point out the truth.

[hrmjustin]

62. Sometimes I really question why I post in this room.

It can get so toxic that it is not worth it. But I guess the topics interest me so much that I am willing to deal with it.

And I can't claim to be a 100 percent innocent here,. I have my faults as well.

[rug]

63. I come for the bonhomie.

[edhopper]

69. So, why are you here

in the forum?

[rug]

70. I just wrote why.

I also come to discuss religion.

Too often the bullshit gets in the way.

[edhopper]

71. Oh

didn't get it.

It's often hard to translate snark.

[Prophet 451]

72. I come here for the stories about religion

The threads for believers are always outnumbered, sometimes heavily, by the threads about how awful religion is and how stupid believers are. But one can occasionally get a reasonable discussion here.