Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I looked over the article. In the history section, we find .[2] Christian later transferred ownership of the land and the Guidestones to Elbert County.[2] Nothing else matters. The superstitious and the fearful will destroy it. Much as the Taliban destroyed the ancient Buddhas and Isis destroyed the contents of the Iraq museum.

Yes. That was solid wisdom with good insight.

Did this survey mention any of the joke or protest churches? The Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Purple Oyster of Doom? Jediism? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The Church of Google? The Temple of Set? The Church of Bacon? The Church of Elvis? The Church of Beer? The Temple of Apathea? Any of the others? Unlike America, the UK actually has government recognition for favored religions. The numbers actually have consequences. They mean something for the "clergy." Any mention of ULC? Any mentions of Atheist, Agnostic, or Apatheist?

Atmosphere is part of it. Going to services is a social outlet. Even as you say, an Atheist church. I suspect that there is something deeper going on. It is difficult to come out of the Atheist closet. Even in a place like New York City which is largely a secular place. It's hard to say what the pressure is or where it comes from. There is a social stigma. Like being a lawyer or a sex worker. I know. It's silly, but there is an odd vibration in the background. The elephant in the room that nobody wants to admit is there. It also depends on the survey. In some surveys, the NONEs are taking over and religion is on it's way out. There are other surveys that say that Islam is gaining ground and will be be dominant world religion in 2040. Other surveys say that the Mormons are the fastest growing church. I don't trust any of it. So much feeds into pure confirmation bias. In general, these religion surveys fall into traps. They ask people if they believe in God. They don't focus on the meaning of "God" or "belief." They ask how often people pray. They don't define prayer. They ask if people self identify as "Christian." They don't define Christian. Seriously. What is a Christian? People use that term who think that Jesus was nothing more than a great philosopher. There are other people who claim the label of Christian; because they see themselves as being a good person and give it no deeper thought. There are other "Christians" who were baptised as infants, entered into church rolls -- and have not been to church since. On this board alone, we have both Dan and Rev. Cali. Very different interpretations. What is a NONE? A serious Atheist or Agnostic? Maybe someone who has no active afilliation? They don't make a distinction. There are other layers of confusion. We have people who are deeply troubled and hate God -- who claim to be Atheists. The surveys make no distinctions. Certainly, they make no distinctions between Pagans, Neo-Pagans, Heathens, Classicalists, etc.

I suspect that the religious label lives on -- sometimes long after the faith has died.

You see the situation clearly. Nothing significant, but irritating.

Welcome to the group.

I don't care what you believe. Having you tell me what I believe is irritating.

In the best of all possible worlds, it would be enough. I find that when I am open minded in an exchange, I am often the only open minded one present. Just for one example, since we are using Dan as an example -- I have lost all track of the times that Dan has insisted that "Atheists believe in nothing." I know. It's small of me. I lose equanimity.

No. If this is the observer effect -- the CD would work for other people, but not you. It would not work for you because you know that it is cracked. It would work for others because they think it's in perfect condition.

You also objected to "improbable". What word would you use?

That sounds right. It strikes the right tone.

Seriously? All of the gods are false. Except for your God. Your God is real. Does that cover it?

That is one of the functions of science. To determine which facts are true. With objectivity.

This is why I generally prefer the Agnostic label over the Atheist label. I can have an intelligent conversation about what I know and how I know it. Or at least, how I think I know it. The moment belief enters the conversation -- it's all about opinion. I know. It's a nuance. People get more steamed when their belief is questioned than when their facts are questioned.

The dangers of the Kabalistic path are things of legend and folklore. Maybe it's real. Maybe it's bullsh*t. I advise caution. Likewise, Kundalini Yoga. I don't know anybody who had a "Kundalini crack up." Such things are part of the folklore. A bit of wisdom from ancient Greece. "Who the gods love, they first make mad."

In your analysis, you left out the element of what is likely. Is it plausible? If you tell me that you had peanut butter for lunch -- whether you did or not -- it is at least possible that you had peanut butter for lunch. On the other hand, if you want to tell me that you have the ability to bend space, and that you used this ability to eat lunch on Mars, then return by the same method -- I would not believe you without proof. This is not plausible. Even if this actually happened. The ability to eat a peanut butter sandwich is plausible. The power to bend space is implausible. In my perception -- I specify -- my perception -- The existence of the Biblical God is implausible, and eternal damnation for unbelievers is even less plausible than that. No one is required to show me anything. Unless they want to alter my perception of what is possible. In which case, I require strong proof. Then again, if the people who have these beliefs, are content to leave things as they are, I require no proof.

At this point in my life, if I were to get serious about a deity, it would be the goddess Apathea. She is the personification of Apathy. Apathea neither rewards nor punishes her followers. She can't be bothered. At least, I would know why my goddess was ignoring me.

Please........That's RAmen.

Maybe down the line. For me, having to dress up like a pirate is a deal breaker. On the other hand, you have to love those sacraments. A spaghetti meal with real Parmesan cheese and a side of garlic bread. When they eat the flesh of their Lord, they make a full meal of it. No little wafer for them. "Make America Grate again."

What are you playing at? You're telling me that anybody can tell me anything -- and I have to accept it without evidence -- no matter how stupid or crazy?

I hold the truths of these statements to be self evident. Along the lines of -- Fire is hot. Ice is cold.

What claim do I have to prove? That I don't believe in God? That I have no reason, based on the available evidence, to believe in God? What are you looking for, from me, to provide? Ad hominem be damned. Clearly you are arguing for it's own sake. Maybe you can't look at the available evidence and draw even a tentative conclusion. I can.

Now you're just being contrary and argumentative. No. I don't. I see no good reason to believe that God exists. What do I have to prove?

I agree. We make a simple statement about not having enough of a reason to believe. Somehow, this makes us unreasonable. Or close minded. Or angry. Or what ever. And all those stupid, ignorant questions about evolution and cosmology.