3 ms·

Indeed – or more to the point: I wasn't clear in my original statement. I am learning about certain aspects of religion – not learning comparative religion. I

by gobots 12y ago

Indeed – or more to the point: I wasn't clear in my original statement. I am learning about certain aspects of religion – not learning comparative religion. I am not however "learning atheism" as others have decided to claim in this thread. I stopped believing in god years ago, at that point by definition I was an atheist. I am interested in the origins of religion, the scientific reasons that it exists, and the negative impact it has on people.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mreiland 12y ago
By definition you can't learn about religion either because the only thing required for religion is to believe in it. You are misunderstanding his point because it infringes upon how you self-identify. Perspective is weird like that sometimes.
- gobots 12y ago
  "By definition you can't learn about religion either because the only thing required for religion is to believe in it." That is a very weak argument. One cannot learn about religion because all you have to do is believe.. and since I don't believe, I can't learn it? Edit: so there is no proof or evidence needed for religion – you just have to believe. Would you like to buy this rock i have? it keeps tigers away...
  - mreiland 12y ago
    I'm glad you agree that it's a weak argument. It also just happens to be the argument you made in reverse. That was actually the point.
- saraid216 12y ago
  No, he's deliberately misreading me in order to feel that his self-identification is infringed upon. According to him, if a Christian believes in God, and then reads about Christianity to learn about Christianity, said Christian is not a Christian because they're "learning about Christianity". The sheer quantity of stupid required to believe this has disinterested me in continuing any conversation.
  - mreiland 12y ago
    I agree with you, the point of my post was to try and get him to see the ridiculousness of it by simply reversing it.

by gobots 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mreiland 12y ago

By definition you can't learn about religion either because the only thing required for religion is to believe in it. You are misunderstanding his point because it infringes upon how you self-identify. Perspective is weird like that sometimes.

gobots 12y ago
"By definition you can't learn about religion either because the only thing required for religion is to believe in it." That is a very weak argument. One cannot learn about religion because all you have to do is believe.. and since I don't believe, I can't learn it? Edit: so there is no proof or evidence needed for religion – you just have to believe. Would you like to buy this rock i have? it keeps tigers away...
- mreiland 12y ago
  I'm glad you agree that it's a weak argument. It also just happens to be the argument you made in reverse. That was actually the point.
saraid216 12y ago
No, he's deliberately misreading me in order to feel that his self-identification is infringed upon. According to him, if a Christian believes in God, and then reads about Christianity to learn about Christianity, said Christian is not a Christian because they're "learning about Christianity". The sheer quantity of stupid required to believe this has disinterested me in continuing any conversation.
- mreiland 12y ago
  I agree with you, the point of my post was to try and get him to see the ridiculousness of it by simply reversing it.