Breezy: Generally speaking, people tend to stay away and avoid contentious and controversial topics.

Except religious believers, especially Christians and Muslims, and this is due to the fact that they are ultimately the most violent and the most hateful of ALL ideologies.

Breezy: ...they merely view your position as wrong.

Then why must ALL of you Absolutists have to jump down our throats, shoving your Bible feet-first? Why must you Absolutists be so damned militant about proving us wrong? Why must it always be you Absolutists to start the flaming?

Good examples are when I meet an Absolutist for the first. They are the first one to announce they believe in God and Jesus (or Muhammad and Allah). I simply say, "OK. Good for you." And it is always the Absolutist who forces the issue, asking what I believe, then when I tell them, they are the first to become verbally violent to prove I am wrong. Why is that?

I have never met ANY Absolutist who was not ultimately militant, downright hateful and spiteful, sometimes verging on actual violence to prove they are right and I am wrong. Why must ALL Absolutists take that, "I MUST save your soul even if it kills you." approach. Why can NO Absolutists also hold my Fourth Commandment to be true?

My Four Commandment (repeated for the millionth time): "You shall respect the right of ALL persons to believe whatsoever they wish to believe; even if contradictory to your beliefs. You may discuss beliefs; however, forcing your beliefs onto others is condemnable."

For clarification: Just because I RESPECT your right to believe whatsoever you wish to believe does NOT mean I have to respect your BELIEFS.

And here is something a lifelong Christian (70+ years) with a PhD in religion (I forget specifically) said to me once:
"You should be ashamed of yourself for not raising your daughters in the Word of God. You should be ashamed for never taking them to church to teach them to be proper Christians. It is no wonder you lost them all. You lost your entire family as payment for not raising your children correctly.”

And please keep your bullshit sympathy. Because that is what it would be. Another thing ALL Absolutists are incapable of: true sympathy. And then you Absolutists wonder why I have finally, after 50+ years, turned the tables and have become a "Militant Anti-Religionist," and have the audacity to ask me why.

And because your beliefs are based on lies, falsehoods, innuendoes, plagiarized myths and legends, and made up faerie tales means, as we put in SENCland, "I ain't never gonna believe your horse hoowhee. That bullshit is as useful as a used tampon."

And this is where you Absolutists turn to violence. ALL of you feel it is your moral imperative and God-given right to FORCE your bullshit onto ALL others, even if you have to kill us.

If it were not for us Secularists standing up for ourselves and getting the laws passed, you Absolutists would still be burning us at the stake, dunking us in water, tying a boulder to our ankles and throwing the boulder into a deep lake, converting us into basketball centers, piling large rocks onto our chest until the rib cage collapses, hanging us by neck until dead, converting us into a pin cushion, amongst many other forms of VIOLENCE. And if you say, "No we would not do that." Then you are just as big a spewer of incorrect assumptions as ALL other Absolutists. Absolutists are incapable of telling the truth unless telling a lie with get them into βαθιά σκατά.

If wondering, βαθιά σκατά is Greek for deep shit. Due to my wife being Greek, sometimes, some things just come out Greek. ;-)

As I have said in other threads, Christianity and Islam are the two greatest threats to all humanity, for they are the most hateful and violent ideologies ever created by man. Yes, there are some "truly good" people within these ideologies, but ultimately Religion itself is actually Humankind's worst enemy.

And there ain't no one who can disprove these facts about religions and the believers.

rmfr

You don't think disagreement is likely to cause argument? Do you have an encyclopedia of semantics or something? The real funny thing is how contentious you're being / always are.

Breezy: Any objections will primarily be directed at your conclusions about the existence of God; and I can't think of a good reason why it shouldn't.

While some of what you say is true, the piece highlighted above:

The same old Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Always remember. Those making the outlandish and preposterous claims are the ones who bear the Burden of Proof.

Otherwise, Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat, Latin for, "He who says he does not have the burden of proof lies."

rmfr