I have been criticized by some few here for doing just that.

One wonders if any who criticized me will also criticize this post.

assuming this song is about you...

This place, evanescent as it is, is not yours.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/egotistical

But I fear that the agreement would not be followed, difficult to verify and impossible to enforce. Starting new posts seems to be the norm now.

But if the criticism is only directed at the theists, what should I think?

I am not the only theist who posts here.

So I take it as normal for this group now.

Also I think qazlpm135 is agnostic, so it would invalidate the idea that it only applies to theists.

I push back on some atheist arguments about the utility of religion.

I view it as no different than any other man-made ethos, capable of being used for evil, good and everything in between depending upon who is wielding it.

As long as it's used for good, I support it. When it's used for evil, I oppose it.

Put another way, I could make an excellent banana bread by following a standard recipe. Thus, I'd have logic and reason and a scientific method that got me to a certain result.

But once as a hungry poor kid, I poured some flour, allspice and whatever I could find into a mixing bowl and baked it. It tasted delicious, like banana bread. But I didn't have/use a recipe, so I never was able to come close to replicating it again. But for that one time, it didn't matter, I got to the same, delicious result.

Religion may not be based on logical ethical thought. But where religious ethics and logical ethics turn up the same answer, I don't care.

Actions speak.

And I have pointed out that every type of belief can be and is used as a justification for action. Patriotism and theism have both been used to justify mass murder.

What do you hope to accomplish ?

Non-fiction is my game. Since 1974, it's been my living.

I aim for that, thanks.

And demanding religious people prove to YOU that a god exists all under the guise of rational discussion .

What kind of rational discussion can a non-believer have with a believer especially when every discussion will boil down to the non-believer saying "prove it"

You dont believe and i cant imagine anything anyone says here will change your mind . So what are you really hoping to accomplish by coming here and poking your fingers into the eyes of the religious.

It's the "Religion Group." Here, religion is discussed from all perspectives. Believers and non-believers are all welcome here. We discuss religion, and its intersection with society at large.

in a god or gods, unicorns, leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster. And shows no quibble with theists believing whatever they want. The importance to me of this discourse is not what anyone believes, but the claim of superior knowledge, and worse, the claim that that superior knowledge should affect my life by way of enforced rituals, e.g., saying the pledge of allegiance, or by enacting laws based not on Constitutionality, but on a vague notion that this is a Christian nation.

Disclaimer: I belong to a Lutheran Church, as a way to provide community service to the poor.

if I'm talking to a non-religious ethicist, they might claim they have the ideal ethical answer based on whatever ethical school they espouse.

Or they might say, hey there's several schools of thought here on this one, not sure which one is right, and I've met plenty of religious folks who say similar things (this it the religion for me, my path, but I don't think it has to be anyone else's path).

It varies from human to human. The wiser, kinder ones recognize and appreciate diversity...the foolish assholes do not. The latter desperately need rituals, and they need everyone else to observe and validate those rituals. The wiser, kinder folks may also want rituals but don't need anyone else to observe or validate them.

Religion, no religion, those two rough groups of folks will still exist and still act the same way.