sleeper;1057455 wrote:SMH. Clearly, you are unable to use logic and reason, using facts, to infer the correct claim. If you truly believe that people do not mask there religious beliefs to be accepted by society at large, than I cannot help you.

FatHobbit;1057458 wrote:Did someone cite an imaginary study that claimed to do that?

sleeper;1057465 wrote:... I argue for the benefit of others in the hope that society can release these regressive and indefensible beliefs.

LJ;1057460 wrote:Clearly, you have no idea how to read an academic study.

Clearly, you have no studies to back up your claim that the "majority " of believers only make the claim to be accepted. I never said anywhere that there are not people that do that. I am only saying your claim is bull****, and the study you linked makes no such claim.

Con_Alma;1057461 wrote:I don't dismiss that this may and probably does exist. Can you tell me how you might know who does portray that hey have religious beliefs for the purposes of societal acceptance as compared to those who actually have such beliefs?

sleeper;1057465 wrote:I am under the assumption that I cannot change someone's mind especially when it comes to their own personal religious beliefs. However, I am under the assumption that I can influence others that may read this post and decide that its okay to not believe in religion. In fact, using logic and reason, one can easily defend an atheist perspective rather than a believer's point of view. I don't argue for YOUR personal benefit, I argue for the benefit of others in the hope that society can release these regressive and indefensible beliefs.

sleeper;1057396 wrote:Sorry, but when you make a claim you are expected to be able to provide evidence to prove your claim. It cannot work the other way around. Otherwise, I could simply make any statement I want and if you cannot disprove it, then it must be true! This is terrible logic.

sleeper;1057468 wrote:No, but apparently a valid study is needed before something can be proven. I learned this today.

sleeper;1057468 wrote:Are you having trouble finding a link to prove the claims in which you so vehemently defend?

rmolin73;1057466 wrote:WTF? Get your GED diploma back they have failed you.

sleeper;1057420 wrote:Again, the wall of "I can believe whatever I want" has been hit. Embarrassing.

LJ;1057478 wrote:Ah, so Sleeper made everything up, and there is no such study to back up his claim. Therefore, he lied. Good to know

sleeper;1057477 wrote:I can't tell you on an individual basis. ...

sleeper;1057486 wrote:Interesting that you continue to harp on an 'exact' study for my personal and defensible point of view. Do you not follow my logic? It's honestly not that difficult.

ernest_t_bass;1057481 wrote:LOL. Um, no. I'm saying that I cannot prove that God exists.

Are you not making a claim that God does not exist? If that is your claim, do you not have to provide evidence to prove your claim?

Your argument is flawed, and is merely bait for you. You already know the answer... The existence/non-existence of God cannot be proven. You just don't care about the other side of the claim-proving (non-existence). I'm not falling for what you're trying to do.

Con_Alma;1057488 wrote:I already knew you couldn't. I was simply trying to determine if you would admit as much.

Thank you.

sleeper;1057483 wrote:I find it disheartening that everyone is getting so upset regarding this topic.

LJ;1057492 wrote:I'm not harping on your "logic". I am "harping" on the fact that you make **** up.

sleeper;1057483 wrote:Your hatred for me and my views blinds you. If you actually want to engage in any discussion, feel free to jump in.

I find it disheartening that everyone is getting so upset regarding this topic. This was not my intention. Also, attacking me has no effect on my agenda, so why bother?

ernest_t_bass;1057484 wrote:Aren't YOU believing whatever it is you want, based on your OWN ideologies? If someone is raised atheist, should they then become a believer, based on your logic?

LJ;1057478 wrote:Ah, so Sleeper made everything up, and there is no such study to back up his claim. Therefore, he lied. Good to know

Con_Alma;1057471 wrote:Your generous philanthropic effort is better understood with this explanation. I appreciate it.

I think you might have a greater success in your logical crusade if you took a less demeaning approach but then again, it's probably more genuine if you stay true to your own personality.

How might you determine who is using religion for societal accpetnace versus those who are truly believers?