Can atheism coexist with religion?

I'm not angry, didn't your mother tell you it is impolite to interrupt?

 

On one side of this argument we have people who want to weaponize differences of opinion and on the other side we have people who want to be left alone and you are trolling both sides. You are not fooling anybody.

 

Your posts indicate a high degree of anger against other members of this forum. Didn't your mother tell you not to post on public forums if you didn't want to be confronted about your personal flaws?

Agnus dei, qui tolis peccata mundi,

Father Max

 

Another false statement for multiple reasons. Didn't your mother tell you that was a mortal sin?

First, your accusations of trolling are erroneous because a troll seeks to cause anger and spread discord. I only seek to point out truth. Seeking or pointing out the truth isn't trolling.

Second, while I'm sure those are your views of the situation, you are obviously wrong. "Weaponizing opinion" is pure rhetoric since it can't be done. Anyone who truly seeks to be left alone don't post.

Third, the reason extremists become upset with me is because most extremists don't like having someone disagree with them. You are angered at those with whom you disagree, they are angered at you. I, being calm, moderate and sensible, point out the flaws in both your views which results in both sides being angry at me or anyone else who points out the truth. I am not responsible for your extreme points of view nor your anger. You are responsible for your own heart, mind and soul.

Lastly, it's false to accuse me of not "fooling anybody" since that is not my goal as previously stated. It's just another example of your anger.

Corpus Christi,
Father Max

 

Dishonest trolls do make me angry because I am an honest guy and if someone wants to talk to me about anything I expect them to be honest, too. You say you're not trolling? Why are you trying to impersonate me? Impersonating me is not truthful and does not lead to any truth that I am aware of - it's trolling.

Another example of dishonesty is your claim that I said people were "weaponizing opinion". That's not what I said, what I said was that people wanted to weaponize DIFFERENCES OF OPINION and if you were actually following the conversation you read where more than one person said that if I support any cause other than theirs I am violating the first amendment, attacking women, being a climate denier and I no doubt eat children and beat my wife. You yourself accused me of being an extremist even as you claim to not be trolling.

Finally, your arguments are nonsensical on their face, such as the one that freedom of religion is freedom from religion. They are mutually exclusive terms, and the fact that you don't know that is sad in the extreme, especially for someone who claims to be a seeker of truth. I have already explained why, and you have yet to refute my point - instead, you dance around the issue and continue to troll with the "Father Max" bit.

If you can't be honest with me at least be honest with yourself.

 

I didn’t know you loved zygotes

 

The most truthful part of your post is your admission of anger at those with whom you disagree and label "trolls". A less truthful part is your claim of honesty, your false accusations against others and your claims of being "impersonated". Another less-than-honest part is your semantics about weaponizing differences of opinion. It's a forum for open discussion. You obviously strongly dislike anyone who doesn't readily agree with you and, as this thread attests, you have trolled them.

The Constitution protects us from religion as well as our ability to practice our chosen religion. This is why Trump's first travel ban failed the Constitutional test. You refuse to see that you cannot force people to accept your religion yet your defend your right to not accept theirs. What do you call a person like that? I wouldn't call them "Father" or any other follower of Christ.

As for my religion, I'm an ordained minister and choose the title of "Father" over "Pastor". The fact I do is my choice, not yours since the Constitution's First Amendment, as proved legally earlier in this thread, protect our rights of freedom of religion and freedom from your definition of religion.

Dominus vobiscum,
Father Max

 

Is that a problem for you?

 

...or tape worms. He's not royalty, so the "we" only leaves limited options.

Happy Days,
Father Max

 

Yes, when people like you want to force me to breed against my will because you personify a zygote

 

Now you've really done it, claiming to be an ordained minister and choosing the title of Father is not something you choose for yourself, it is something that is given to you AFTER much work and sacrifice. You are as dishonest as they come.

 

Wrong again, slick. If you had put in as much work as you claimed, I would expect a far better result.

Obviously the slackness in which you approached your studies caused to you miss or forget Matthew 7:3-5.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

In saecula saeculorum,
Father Max

 

Well I dunno about that. I rather cotton to Einstein's idea that religion without science is blind.

Actually I think he's got you scoped out pretty well, I do indeed.

 

I'll bet you think you are honest makin

And as usual, you are not answering the charges, you ate changing the subject. Not even a nice try Paatrick. You are no ordained minister.

 

But it is possible to believe it doesn't exist due to the lack of evidence. A lack of belief comes from lack of knowledge. You can't believe if something exists or doesn't exist if you have not concepted it. However, once it's potential existence is brought up and into question, you make a choice then and there, to either believe it does not exist or to believe it does. It's a decision that you can change at any time, but you still make that decision, even if it is subconsciously.

 

You edited that last line in didn't you?

 

Any system or idea can be re-purposed or corrupted. So such things should not be dismissed out of hand simply because another group latched onto it and tried to use it as a Trojan Horse. Additionally there are plenty of religious people out there that accept all that science shows. Science merely shows us and explains to us the rules and mechanisms God put into the universe when He created it. The thing is science works regardless of whether or not there is a deity of any sort. ID is the one system that actually can put creationism (but not literal creationism, i.e. the created in only 6 days type) and evolution together in a workable system. ID does not require a deity per se. So while a religious person might try to pervert it for use as a religious cover, it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Now mind you, it doesn't have enough evidence to support being taught in schools as a viable theory as evolution is. But then, even evolution at one point didn't have enough evidence to make it worthy to be taught in schools.

 

Yep.

 

Oh, the IRONY coming from someone who preaches confirmation bias for a living.

 

What is it with you people? You claim to know what I preach, you tell me what I believe, next thing will be you telling me what I look like.

 

I was talking about the notion that the only way the existence of God can be proven is by putting Him under a microscope.

 

if you’re going to quote Einstein
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

 

Perhaps we "Know" it because you make it so very clear? No one knows (or wants to) the details but, you have provided more than enough indication.

 

So you don't even know the definition of the term confirmation bias while you indiscriminately abuse it? That says VOLUMES!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

How does the above definition of confirmation bias NOT fit what all theists preach about their beliefs?

 

FYI Einstein left behind a note asking that no statues of himself be made so Princeton university removed the bust they had of him on display.