I have done a bit of language study, and lived in 3 different Asian countries amongst and with the locals.

I also recall my own memories as a child when I was ever so sensitive to tone of voice, and facial expression.

NathanJ is perhaps sensitive. Prefers to do things with an uplifting Spirit, for want of another way to put it. And I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with that. Certainly, I myself cannot discount that there is a considerable range of variance amongst different people and different cultures in this regard.

Why else would you put up with a nasty librarian for so long?

Whilst I agree with AJ's sentiment in relation to certain individuals that hold positions of authority within the church and establishment more broadly, I do find religion to be entirely devoid of merit.

Some cultures of course, are still ruled by individuals who reckon in a quite unsophisticated way, and evidenced based reason in a "spurious concept" not fully understood by them.

And yet, we must come to terms with them.

One mistake that history attests to of course is when the so-called superiors presume the right to take advantage of those less able.

So, does anyone think that practicing "safe sex" is a bad idea in AIDS infested areas?

You see, it's all very well for religious people to have faith, but when they believe that God is real, and that they know what God wants, and then that it is their right to impose this on everyone else, then it is at that point that their nonsense needs to be driven home hard, if nonsense is indeed what it is that they are espousing.

I think your assessment is pretty spot on, DreamOn. NathanJ seems like a very nice person. A sensitive soul, but very nice nonetheless. It’s just so disappointing...

If you provide links to support your argument, then you’re link-bombing.

If you provide no l links to support your argument, then you’re asserting.

If you’re asked what your qualifications are and you mention them, then you’re big-noting yourself.

If the other side has no rational arguments and you mention that before you get to demonstrate it, then you’re displaying hubris.

If you pursue a point because there are continual flaws in your opponent’s every response, then you’re an ideologue.

If your reasoning is solid and others are uncomfortable with it, then you’re smart and are deliberately making a point of it.

If your opponent has defended their position from multiple angles and you’ve successfully countered them all, then you’re point-scoring.

And in this case, I take advantage of the increased number of posts allowed in a day to provide a more detailed explanation so as to minimise misunderstanding and prevent an unnecessarily lengthy back-and-forth, and I’m using a lot of words to (somehow) suit myself.

[I think that’s NathanJ’s very nice way of saying something that I’d probably find very insulting.]

You can’t win. It doesn’t matter who you’re talking to, what you say, or how you say it. If your reasoning is sound, and someone doesn’t like that, then expect some ad hominem to fly your way.

A person with a religious belief may forsake living their life to the full and make more sacrifices for others because they believe they will be rewarded with eternal life in the big place up in the sky.
An atheist believes this is the only life they'll ever get and may instead live this life to the full, not wanting to waste a single minute of it.

They are both valuable points of view, (though religion does seem a little kooky on face value) but they are even more valuable if your smart enough to know the difference and consider both for a wider ranging perspective on life.

AC: A person with a religious belief may forsake living their life to the full and make more sacrifices for others.
An atheist believes this is the only life they'll ever get and may instead live this life to the full,

This sounds like you are saying that Atheists never make sacrifices for the good of mankind. I'm sure whatever Religion or No Religion everybody does their little bit for others without even thinking about it.

AC and JB
Wow I went away for a few does, and this post went nuts.
So you both seem to be saying that there are only two options. Believe the stories, be good, give service, and money to your church (hopefully the right one), and you have it made in the shade so to speak.
Alternatively you don’t believe the stories, are completely selfish ignoring the interest of all others who come in to your orbit of influence, and there is nothing after you fall of your perch.

Well what about the Buddhist’s. I live where most are Buddhist and they seem to be content believing that, if they are good to others (especially the monks) then when they come back it will be a pleasant experience.

There are also those, who live hand to mouth in the jungle and have a whole different belief system.

I have changed my religious belief many times, which I know some find difficult to understand. I think if you stay in the life you born into then you are unlikely to change much over the course of your life. However if you have invested a lot of your time in only one belief , then as you are contemplating you’re your last breath, it is likely you will be hoping you picked the right one.

You might like to read the last words of Steve Jobs, if you think I am wrong.

Chris

Last words of Steve Job?

"Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." (from his sister who was present)