Trying again--why is God silent?

[Lady Florida.]

Well, thanks, now I have that song running through my head...

 

"Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz

My friends all have Porsches; I must make amends..."

 

:lol:

 

Glad I'm not the only one. I had to explain Dialing for Dollars to my teenager. :D

[Guest]

Well, thanks, now I have that song running through my head...

 

"Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz

My friends all have Porsches; I must make amends..."

 

:lol:

Well, you know that is why I chose that example. :)

[fraidycat]

I don't believe he has stopped speaking to us....and I don't believe this current state of human affairs is going to last for eternity.

I'm confused. It was your argument that he spoke to them until they disobeyed, thus implying he stopped at that time. So... did he, or did he not stop speaking at the time of the disobedience?

 

It can't be both.

[Tsuga]

I think if God existed, as Christians and Muslims and Jews believe him to exist, and spoke five times a day from heaven, humans would still not believe that message. Those who want to believe would say, "It is so obvious!" And those who don't find natural phenomena compelling evidence for God would say, "You made God in the image of that phenomenon because you wanted order in the universe. It's just sounds and it sounds like our language because our language evolved from things we hear. We are a part of nature and so is that sky sound."

 

And we would have the exact same arguments we are having now.

 

I am not a believer, FTR.

[Joyoustxmama]

The thing is that you can go to that every day to find out that He indeed is concerned about you, but there are millions of people who can't read, don't know there is such a thing as a Bible or don't understand it.

 

A direct voice seems like it would be more convenient and wide reaching. People wouldn't have to decide which book was the real book. Is it the Bible? Is it the Qur'an?  Is it some other Holy Book that none of us have heard of?

 

I also think it is mistaken to think that people would be inclined to ignore God's teachings if they came in loud and clear. 

 

I wish I could give you a solid sort of answer.  But all I can do is empathize; I have wondered these same things myself.

 

For me it is a rocky, rocky road with a ton of two steps forward, three back... three forward, two back, in an alternating sequence.  I have a little card I bought from a convent, which I like, which simply has a line drawing of an acorn sprouting into a tiny tree and "The life of a soul is a slow growth" scripted on it.

 

I alternate from the humility of knowing that I have only to be grateful I am alive at all; I have no right to demand answers of the Creator - and this reality: that my heart gets lonely and lost and angry sometimes - I hurt for myself or for the vile suffering of others, most especially innocents - and I do cry out for answers.  Usually, I've found if I'm patient and hold to even the most grudging, weak faith, some answers, some peace, will eventually, come. 

 

Faith is a struggle for me.  And I don't know whether to envy those for whom it seems very easy, or not...

[Scarlett]

I'm confused. It was your argument that he spoke to them until they disobeyed, thus implying he stopped at that time. So... did he, or did he not stop speaking at the time of the disobedience?

 

It can't be both.

He did stop speaking to them ( specifically Adam and Eve) when they disobeyed. He did not stop speaking and or communicating to other humans nor do I believe this current situation will last for all eternity. In fact, far from being a monster, he provided a means for the descendants of Adam and Eve to eventually live as He originally purposed. As perfect humans on a paradise earth.

[fraidycat]

He did stop speaking to them ( specifically Adam and Eve) when they disobeyed.

So, we've come full circle to being a jerk, to put it nicely.

 

Good thing it's a myth. Otherwise I'd be righteously indignant at what a deadbeat dad he was in this story. Which if one reads the bible, is the very least of the true awfulness that Mergath nicely summed up upthread.

[Scarlett]

So, we've come full circle to being a jerk, to put it nicely.

 

Good thing it's a myth. Otherwise I'd be righteously indignant at what a deadbeat dad he was in this story. Which if one reads the bible, is the very least of the true awfulness that Mergath nicely summed up upthread.

If you belive it to be a myth why do you ask questions? Just to make fun and dismiss deeply held beliefs? Calling my God a 'deadbeat dad' and a jerk is very unkind.

 

In case someone is reading who is really interested in my beliefs, the relationship between God and Adam and Eve was unique in that they were perfect, living in perfect conditions and made the deliberate choice to disobey. Therefore they lost that unique relationship with God who had given them life.

[eternalsummer]

I think the difficulty is the disconnect between anthropomorphizing god (when you say things like "he is a loving father" and etc.) and the descriptions of actions he takes as a supernatural supreme being; a loving human father would never, even if his children deliberately chose to disobey while living in perfect conditions, refuse to ever talk to them again.  That would be insane.

 

But as a god, it rings more true - gods are often portrayed as being extreme in actions/reactions and we don't expect them to behave in human ways or hold them responsible to human conceptions of morality.

 

 

[eternalsummer]

I see the biblical god as a metaphor for some aspects of what I guess I'd call Spinoza's god ("as a way of naming universal laws and energies...").  The characteristics are contradictory but this doesn't bother me because life is sometimes contradictory - there is good and bad in the universe and I have to reconcile that in the same way that you can reconcile a god who is alternately loving and self-sacrificing (jesus) and genocidal (the ark).

 

In fact, understanding god in this way makes human genocide easier to process; we blame the nazis for evil behavior, and they were evil, but then we wonder (or at least I do) how a reasonable person could ever have taken part in such a thing - much less thousands of reasonable people!  And the contradiction between that genocide and the good that is in most people is similar to the contradiction between the good and irrational/genocidal parts of god - I see things like war and genocide as bad, certainly, and morally corrupt/undesirable, but also as as inevitable as the Flood (or as the Indonesian flood).

[eternalsummer]

DH likes to say that humans are the universe's way of self-reflecting.  

[Aelwydd]

God did speak directly to Adam and Eve until they disobeyed.

Adam and Eve never existed. Humans evolved very slowly from a series of indiscriminate, large, random-breeding hominid populations, diverging from a common ancestor to the Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) families.

[albeto.]

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Doesn't make me want to worship though. And makes more sense that this God is a reflection of what humans struggle to reconcile in themselves. A created God, rather than a creator.

 

It doesn't make sense to me. It seems as if this god-who-is-completely-detached is functionally identical to no god at all. What makes it a god? Simply labeling it so? That seems so... Wrinkle in Time like, or I supposed to be apropos, ancient Hebrew: To name a thing is to give it existence. While that's poetic, it's not realistic. We can't name things into existence, we know reality doesn't work this way, magic exists only in the imagination. Coming to terms with good and bad in the world is coming to terms with cause and effect, emotions, personal well-being, and the well-being of others. This process does not require magic to undertake. And arguably, as Mergath, fraidycat, Quill, and others have touched on, Jesus is not alternatively alternately loving and self-sacrificing. A case can be made for his affection being predictably conditional and lacking compassion. I think the case is pretty strong, but naturally, it's not likely to be a topic of discussion here. This isn't the case with the world, there is no external object whose emotions must be taken into consideration for appeal for favor. 

 

I agree with Mergath in that trivializing genocide with a vague kind of "happy ending" element [for those chosen to be spared] is an otherwise morally bankrupt concept, and wouldn't be tolerated in any other context. Genocide and ethnic cleansing and other public policies that are viewed with horror after the fact can be explained by appealing to facts, data, objective information, the law of cause and effect, and other natural answers. 

[Scarlett]

Adam and Eve never existed. Humans evolved very slowly from a series of indiscriminate, large, random-breeding series of hominid populations diverging from a common ancestor to the Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) families.

:) no. Just no.

[Aelwydd]

I see the biblical god as a metaphor for some aspects of what I guess I'd call Spinoza's god ("as a way of naming universal laws and energies..."). The characteristics are contradictory but this doesn't bother me because life is sometimes contradictory - there is good and bad in the universe and I have to reconcile that in the same way that you can reconcile a god who is alternately loving and self-sacrificing (jesus) and genocidal (the ark).

 

In fact, understanding god in this way makes human genocide easier to process; we blame the nazis for evil behavior, and they were evil, but then we wonder (or at least I do) how a reasonable person could ever have taken part in such a thing - much less thousands of reasonable people! And the contradiction between that genocide and the good that is in most people is similar to the contradiction between the good and irrational/genocidal parts of god - I see things like war and genocide as bad, certainly, and morally corrupt/undesirable, but also as as inevitable as the Flood (or as the Indonesian flood).

What if one does not, strictly, believe in good and evil, as spiritual absolutes or morals?

 

I'm speaking here to the philophical concepts, not the everyday informal usage of these terms.

[Aelwydd]

:) no. Just no.

Scientific evidence does not support a bottleneck population of two fully evolved modern humans acting as parents for all existing people today.

[Scarlett]

It doesn't make sense to me. It seems as if this god-who-is-completely-detached is functionally identical to no god at all. What makes it a god? Simply labeling it so? That seems so... Wrinkle in Time like, or I supposed to be apropos, ancient Hebrew: To name a thing is to give it existence. While that's poetic, it's not realistic. We can't name things into existence, we know reality doesn't work this way, magic exists only in the imagination. Coming to terms with good and bad in the world is coming to terms with cause and effect, emotions, personal well-being, and the well-being of others. This process does not require magic to undertake. And arguably, as Mergath, fraidycat, Quill, and others have touched on, Jesus is not alternatively alternately loving and self-sacrificing. A case can be made for his affection being predictably conditional and lacking compassion. I think the case is pretty strong, but naturally, it's not likely to be a topic of discussion here. This isn't the case with the world, there is no external object whose emotions must be taken into consideration for appeal for favor.

 

I agree with Mergath in that trivializing genocide with a vague kind of "happy ending" element [for those chosen to be spared] is an otherwise morally bankrupt concept, and wouldn't be tolerated in any other context. Genocide and ethnic cleansing and other public policies that are viewed with horror after the fact can be explained by appealing to facts, data, objective information, the law of cause and effect, and other natural answers.

"Chosen to be spared". my understanding of scripture isn't like that. At all.

 

But what I can't figure out about all of you atheists is why do you care about our ( to you) myths? What's it to you?

[Scarlett]

Scientific evidence does not support a bottleneck population of two fully evolved modern humans acting as parents for all existing people today.

Depends on what scientist you ask.

[Scarlett]

It's like any other 'big' concept. Interesting to talk about. One thing that makes me think about it is trying to work out the differences between me, and my friends - smart as or smarter than me - and why/how we can believe such radically different things.

 

I also like to discuss baking and skirts :)

I definitely prefer talking about skirts with you.

[Mergath]

"Chosen to be spared". my understanding of scripture isn't like that. At all.

 

But what I can't figure out about all of you atheists is why do you care about our ( to you) myths? What's it to you?

 

Noah and his family weren't chosen by God to be spared from the flood?

 

Not all of us who disagree with elements of Christianity are atheists. Some of us are just sick of having the idea of the Divine co-opted by such a sadistic and murderous deity.

[Scarlett]

Noah and his family weren't chosen by God to be spared from the flood?

 

Not all of us who disagree with elements of Christianity are atheists. Some of us are just sick of having the idea of the Divine co-opted by such a sadistic and murderous deity.

You aren't atheist?

[Aelwydd]

Depends on what scientist you ask.

If you ask a biologist, an anthropologist, a geneticist, or a zoologist, none will postulate all humans descended from a population of two parents. No bottleneck ever reduced to fewer than perhaps 2000 individuals. If Adam and Eve existed as part of such a group, then their children mated with lower hominid lifeforms. That would constitute bestiality in modern terms.

[Scarlett]

If you ask a biologist, an anthropologist, a geneticist, or a zoologist, none will postulate all humans descended from a population of two parents. No bottleneck ever reduced to fewer than perhaps 2000 individuals. If Adam and Eve existed as part of such a group, then their children mated with lower hominid lifeforms. That would constitute bestiality in modern terms.

Again it depends on which scientist you ask.

[albeto.]

"Chosen to be spared". my understanding of scripture isn't like that. At all.

 

No doubt. I wonder what would happen to your faith if you decided to just let the facts speak for themselves, and not rely on any emotional cues you feel to guide you. If you resisted practicing any religious behaviors like prayer, attending services, reading the bible, etc, and simply accepted only that which could be supported with objective unbiased information, do you think that would change your understanding of scripture?

 

But what I can't figure out about all of you atheists is why do you care about our ( to you) myths? What's it to you?

 

Because people act on their beliefs, and it makes a difference if those beliefs are rooted in fact or fantasy. Because it affects me, my family, my community, my nation, and my world. Because when people apply magical thinking to real world problems, and defer to emotional cues in lieu of objective data, the consequences are detrimental both personally and globally. Because people are punished for "crimes" that amount to blasphemy, rather than actual offence against other people, and I am sympathetic to the victim of unjustified punishment, imprisonment, and torture, especially when these are inspired by beliefs that defy facts, logic, and reason. Because people's lives are at risk both directly and indirectly due to personal behavior and public policy that appeal to arguments that must be taken on faith as they clearly lack evidence. Because we are citizens of a global community, and religious offenses are compounded as non-religious communities face the wrath of the "righteously indignant" through economic tyranny, political oppression, or old fashioned violence and terrorism, and these practices are getting more and more concerning as tools and weapons of choice increasingly put more people at risk of being punished for offending the wrong pretend character. Because the very reasons the Enlightenment brought civility and stability to the western world should not be dismissed to return to an age of moral and ethical darkness as fears and hopes are the strings upon which the clever manipulate those eager to believe a comforting tale. 

[albeto.]

Again it depends on which scientist you ask.

 

The evidence doesn't depend on anything. It exists regardless of whether or not employees in one organization or another accept it. 

[Scarlett]

No doubt. I wonder what would happen to your faith if you decided to just let the facts speak for themselves, and not rely on any emotional cues you feel to guide you. If you resisted practicing any religious behaviors like prayer, attending services, reading the bible, etc, and simply accepted only that which could be supported with objective unbiased information, do you think that would change your understanding of scripture?

 

 

Because people act on their beliefs, and it makes a difference if those beliefs are rooted in fact or fantasy. Because it affects me, my family, my community, my nation, and my world. Because when people apply magical thinking to real world problems, and defer to emotional cues in lieu of objective data, the consequences are detrimental both personally and globally. Because people are punished for "crimes" that amount to blasphemy, rather than actual offence against other people, and I am sympathetic to the victim of unjustified punishment, imprisonment, and torture, especially when these are inspired by beliefs that defy facts, logic, and reason. Because people's lives are at risk both directly and indirectly due to personal behavior and public policy that appeal to arguments that must be taken on faith as they clearly lack evidence. Because we are citizens of a global community, and religious offenses are compounded as non-religious communities face the wrath of the "righteously indignant" through economic tyranny, political oppression, or old fashioned violence and terrorism, and these practices are getting more and more concerning as tools and weapons of choice increasingly put more people at risk of being punished for offending the wrong pretend character. Because the very reasons the Enlightenment brought civility and stability to the western world should not be dismissed to return to an age of moral and ethical darkness as fears and hopes are the strings upon which the clever manipulate those eager to believe a comforting tale.

You assume I rely only on emotional cues.

 

You can string a sentence together, but I can assure you nothing my worship is harming you or anyone.

[albeto.]

"Chosen to be spared". my understanding of scripture isn't like that. At all.

 

But what I can't figure out about all of you atheists is why do you care about our ( to you) myths? What's it to you?

 

The very word "Israel" refers to belonging to God. The Hebrews are considered the "chosen ones" in the Jewish scriptures. Paul opened the criteria up to belief rather than birth (as documented by circumcision, another element of the story that defies logic). You may not understand it as such, but it is a fundamental tenet of Christian theology. 

 

I answered your question while you were writing this, so I'll leave it there. 

[Firefly]

Not all of us who disagree with elements of Christianity are atheists. Some of us are just sick of having the idea of the Divine co-opted 

 

Preach it, sista! (No pun intended). ;) 

[Scarlett]

The very word "Israel" refers to belonging to God. The Hebrews are considered the "chosen ones" in the Jewish scriptures. Paul opened the criteria up to belief rather than birth (as documented by circumcision, another element of the story that defies logic). You may not understand it as such, but it is a fundamental tenet of Christian theology.

 

I answered your question while you were writing this, so I'll leave it there.

My point is, for every point you or other atheists or anti Bible people make, another point can be made to refute or explain it.....sometimes it is better to just let the two differences be instead of discussing. Honestly I have no desire to change your mind.

[Scarlett]

The evidence doesn't depend on anything. It exists regardless of whether or not employees in one organization or another accept it.

Evidence is a funny thing. Not near as cut and dried as some would imply.

[albeto.]

I am not understanding. I didn't say it made sense to ME, it just made sense in the context of the internal consistency of the model the poster was proposing.  Plus, I was being polite :)

 

Sometimes you direct corrections at me that I don't understand the need for, as I agree with everything in the correction already :)

 

Sadie, my apologies. I was sloppy, and used your comment as a jumping off point for my thoughts. 

[albeto.]

You assume I rely only on emotional cues.

 

You can string a sentence together, but I can assure you nothing my worship is harming you or anyone.

 

I do not assume you rely only on emotional cues. 

 

I would like to know how you can assure me of this. 

[Scarlett]

I do not assume you rely only on emotional cues.

 

I would like to know how you can assure me of this.

Why would I need to assure you of that? You clearly are intent on selling your own belief system. My point is just because you can put a bunch of words toghether doesn't make those words Truth. If you feel good about what you belive and I feel good about what I believe, I say that is a win for us both.

[albeto.]

My point is, for every point you or other atheists or anti Bible people make, another point can be made to refute or explain it.....sometimes it is better to just let the two differences be instead of discussing. Honestly I have no desire to change your mind.

 

There is no expectation of any universal belief among all Christians. I know that for whatever claim of the Real Faith made, there are those who disagree. Nevertheless, the historical doctrines have included the identity of being chosen, and that is clearly expressed throughout the bible.

 

I wonder why you have no desire to change my mind. Would it really bring you no satisfaction if you were to learn that your words were persuasive enough to make me seriously consider your argument? Would it bring you no joy to learn I might be considered for spending an eternity of paradise, or does your empathy not extend to this particular element of my eternal fate? Would it really not be a source of comfort to know I might be persuaded to respect and trust the things you deeply respect and trust? 

[mamaraby]

What you might not be aware of is that many non-believers, whether they were raised as such or deconverted, are quite familiar with what you call the word of God. Many of us have read it thoroughly and repeatedly. In fact for some (myself included) that's what either caused or contributed to our becoming/remaining atheists. As for your last sentence, I agree. Only good has come out of my reading the word of God, however I don't think we mean that in the same way.

Yup. My undergraduate degree is from Moody. Dh went to seminary so he has both an undergrad from Moody and a masters. So...yeah, read the Bible quite a bit. Both atheists. Oddly enough, it was all that study and Bible reading that did it.

 

And get this...6 out of 10 skeptics own a Bible and have read from it in the past while a small handful still read it today. At least that's according to Barna - https://www.barna.org/barna-update/culture/713-2015-state-of-atheism-in-america

[albeto.]

Evidence is a funny thing. Not near as cut and dried as some would imply.

 

No one has implied such a thing. Nevertheless, evidence isn't taken on faith. If you wear seat belts in cars or look both ways before crossing the street or eat more vegetables than chocolate, you will be doing so because of the evidence that supports the value of such practices. Looking both ways before crossing the street doesn't take faith. The evidence isn't hard to come by. While the evolution of the human species is far more complex to explain, evidence serves the same function. 

[Scarlett]

There is no expectation of any universal belief among all Christians. I know that for whatever claim of the Real Faith made, there are those who disagree. Nevertheless, the historical doctrines have included the identity of being chosen, and that is clearly expressed throughout the bible.

 

I wonder why you have no desire to change my mind. Would it really bring you no satisfaction if you were to learn that your words were persuasive enough to make me seriously consider your argument? Would it bring you no joy to learn I might be considered for spending an eternity of paradise, or does your empathy not extend to this particular element of my eternal fate? Would it really not be a source of comfort to know I might be persuaded to respect and trust the things you deeply respect and trust?

My understanding of what it means to be chosen from a Biblical standpoint is probably/most assuredly not the historical one.

 

I can see your belief is very deeply rooted and you spend a lot of time explaining why anyone who believes in the Bible or God is stupid ( sorry you probably use a more PC word) . You aren't interested in having your mind changed. You aren't seeking. You are only interested in changng the minds of others.

[Scarlett]

No one has implied such a thing. Nevertheless, evidence isn't taken on faith. If you wear seat belts in cars or look both ways before crossing the street or eat more vegetables than chocolate, you will be doing so because of the evidence that supports the value of such practices. Looking both ways before crossing the street doesn't take faith. The evidence isn't hard to come by. While the evolution of the human species is far more complex to explain, evidence serves the same function.

Key point ---- far more complex to explain. Evidence is a funny thing.

[albeto.]

Why would I need to assure you of that? You clearly are intent on selling your own belief system. My point is just because you can put a bunch of words toghether doesn't make those words Truth. If you feel good about what you belive and I feel good about what I believe, I say that is a win for us both.

 

You don't need assure me, but you offered and I accept the offer.

 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not referring to "Truth" (whatever you mean by that), but evidence. Evidence isn't actually dependent upon stringing words together. 

[Scarlett]

You don't need assure me, but you offered and I accept the offer.

 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not referring to "Truth" (whatever you mean by that), but evidence. Evidence isn't actually dependent upon stringing words together.

No I didn't offer to assure you I don't rely on emotional cues. But you can take my word for it. Really. I am not a liar.

[albeto.]

My understanding of what it means to be chosen from a Biblical standpoint is probably/most assuredly not the historical one.

 

If it has anything to do with Christ, there's history there.

 

I can see your belief is very deeply rooted and you spend a lot of time explaining why anyone who believes in the Bible or God is stupid ( sorry you probably use a more PC word) . You aren't interested in having your mind changed. You aren't seeking. You are only interested in changng the minds of others.

 

You're putting words in my mouth, and very unkind and inaccurate words. I don't equate faith with stupidity. If you watch the video I linked at the beginning, you'll see religion might be explained by natural instincts, not stupidity. Besides, there are simply too many incredibly clever people who genuinely believe in various religious claims. I wouldn't suggest anyone who believes in the bible or in any god is stupid if for no other reason than there is no evidence to support it (ironic, eh? ;)). 

 

You're mistaken if you assume I'm not interested in learning. If learning leads to changing my mind, I'm happy to do so to when information increases knowledge and/or insight. It's why I ask, and why I participate in these discussions, and is a part of how and why I value education and take my role seriously at home in that regard. 

[Free]

At some point in these discussions people are just talking past each other because nobody can agree what the God concept means.

[albeto.]

No I didn't offer to assure you I don't rely on emotional cues. But you can take my word for it. Really. I am not a liar.

 

It seems I mistook your comment to mean you could assure me that your worship does not harm me or anyone:

 

I can assure you nothing my worship is harming you or anyone.

 

I was eager to know how. That's all. But we can let this go.

[Mergath]

You aren't atheist?

 

Nope.  I am the resident Buddhist-Pagan. 

[Scarlett]

It seems I mistook your comment to mean you could assure me that your worship does not harm me or anyone:

 

 

I was eager to know how. That's all. But we can let this go.

You expect me to assure you my faith and worship is harming no one? How do I prove that negative?

[Scarlett]

If it has anything to do with Christ, there's history there.

 

 

You're putting words in my mouth, and very unkind and inaccurate words. I don't equate faith with stupidity. If you watch the video I linked at the beginning, you'll see religion might be explained by natural instincts, not stupidity. Besides, there are simply too many incredibly clever people who genuinely believe in various religious claims. I wouldn't suggest anyone who believes in the bible or in any god is stupid if for no other reason than there is no evidence to support it (ironic, eh? ;)).

 

You're mistaken if you assume I'm not interested in learning. If learning leads to changing my mind, I'm happy to do so to when information increases knowledge and/or insight. It's why I ask, and why I participate in these discussions, and is a part of how and why I value education and take my role seriously at home in that regard.

Right as I said you use more PC terms....but I clearly have totally misread you all of these years if you are interested in learning anything except for the purpose of using it against people of faith.

[albeto.]

You expect me to assure you my faith and worship is harming no one? How do I prove that negative?

 

I don't know, but you said you could assure me, and so I asked how. 

 

Perhaps I should have considered your comment a simple social pleasantry, not meant to be considered seriously. 

[albeto.]

Right as I said you use more PC terms....but I clearly have totally misread you all of these years if you are interested in learning anything except for the purpose of using it against people of faith.

 

Look, it's no secret I'm not persuaded by the arguments of any religion to which I am familiar. I think the natural explanations for religious belief are far more plausible than the many competing religious ones, but please don't confuse advocating knowledge and reason with trying to drag people away from faith. And please don't declare this as my motivation. Your suppositions are incorrect and are personal. 

[Scarlett]

I don't know, but you said you could assure me, and so I asked how.

 

Perhaps I should have considered your comment a simple social pleasantry, not meant to be considered seriously.

LOL. Yes. That is what it is. A social pleasantry.

[Scarlett]

Look, it's no secret I'm not persuaded by the arguments of any religion to which I am familiar. I think the natural explanations for religious belief are far more plausible than the many competing religious ones, but please don't confuse advocating knowledge and reason with trying to drag people away from faith. And please don't declare this as my motivation. Your suppositions are incorrect and are personal.

Well of course it is personal, I am speaking directly to you. But I did say that is how I've understood you. You are saying otherwise, so there ya go.