Why do we continue to be such a religious nation?

[greenslime1951]

@tomndebb

No deity is called “The Man in the Sky,” but you had no trouble making that snide remark. As to capitalizing deity, I tend to capitalize the first words in sentences, regardless of my poor typing abilities.

So, would you like to try this discussion again with a clean OP?

1. “The Man in the Sky” is what I choose to call him (it). No less valid than “God.”

2. Not really, since most posters (no doubt impelled by their hostility toward me for breaking the social taboo against criticism of religion) are refusing to even accept my ingoing premise, or to accept its obvious validity.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@greenslime1951

Then you (sigh) utterly misconstrued my motives because I was critical of religion and religious belief. This is yet another function of the social taboo against criticizing religion–its imposition obscures understanding.

I’ve no idea if this will matter to you, but the advice is sincere - you’re not going to be nullify the antagonism in your first post - whether it was intentional or not - by adding more antagonism.

[tomndebb]

@greenslime1951

1. “The Man in the Sky” is what I choose to call him (it). No less valid than “God.”

2. Not really, since most posters (no doubt impelled by their hostility toward me for breaking the social taboo against criticism of religion) are refusing to even accept my ingoing premise, or to accept its obvious validity.

1. You claimed that you needed to use the insulting phrase because there was no better way to express the concept. I noted two different ways to express the same concept withoiut being insulting. Your phrase, being deliberately insulting, is less valid when it is not the point of the discussion.

2. You are being incredibly silly. This board, (particularly this forum), has far more non-believers and outright anti-theist posters than believers. There is no social taboo against criticism of religion, (even several of the believers are generally critical of religion). That you have not spent enough time reading this board, (or even paying attention to the non-believers who have pointed that out to you in this thread), to recognize that point indicates a pretty clear desire to post polemics without considering the actual dynamics of the board or your correspondents.

[tomndebb]

@tomndebb

Now, if you really want to discuss what you claimed that you wanted to discuss in the OP, I would be happy to close this thread and let you open a new OP without the well poisoning and insults and we can see where that thread goes.

@greenslime1951

As I don’t think this community is actually capable of dispassionately discussing the actual question I asked, and since so many people seem to have gotten exercised by it, I don’t think this thread should be continued, nor should it be reborn under another name.

@tomndebb

So, would you like to try this discussion again with a clean OP?

greenslime: [silence]

Given the general tenor of greenslime’s responses, this thread is clearly not going to address the question of the OP and he does not appear to be interested in pursuing that question.

Thread closed.
The purported question of the OP is still valid and anyone, including greenslime1951, who wishes to post that question as a new thread may do so without prejudice.