Islam, a compendium of Imaginings, Dreams and Fairy-tales created by an Out-cast as a means to gain vengeance upon those whom HE decided had persecuted him.
Just a big a pile of unmitigated Bull-shit as is the Christian Bible.

You were very polite. I find an important text to excuse myself works wonders.

Seems like you allowed proper etiquette and classiness to respond, rather than your emotions. Perhaps if there is a next time, your retrospective response may be okay also (depending on your body language and tone). Lastly, maybe he was antagonizing you since he knew you were an atheist. In that case, he deserved you telling him to F-off; even if you chose not to

Interesting! I am unfamiliar with their beliefs, I guess its a standard model.

@AgeofReason
I was a pagan for about 23 years. Saw a whole lot of crap.

Just about what I was going to comment earlier, but I like the way you said it better...lol

What did you have in mind?

@AgeofReason a hobby? Stamp collecting, bird watching, skiing? Anything but ruminating on the babble and its' relevance to real life...as in, no relevance whatsoever. And look out the door before you open it!

@AnneWimsey ok, I understand. As a new member, I’ve tried several different topics to interact with other members. No other topic seems to get much response at all, except religion, of which I was once part of, and have a few antidotal stories. So while I appreciate your feedback, and I’m sure bird watching and stamp collecting are fascinating subjects, I’ll just stick to what I know. And if you’re asking me politely to STFU, I have a different response to that, as well.

Yes, Anne. Worry about religious is well down my priority list right now. Chiefly, I'm working on trying to save this country from dictatorship.

@mischl we are all going to need a boatload of luck on that!

@AnneWimsey I'm writing and posting political missives daily. And I'm also signed up for writing PostcardsToSwingStates. Oh, and I sent some money to Biden.

@AnneWimsey
After seeing your several of your comments throughout the site, I look forward to yours in addition to certain other users. Why? You seem to know how to offer suggestions, and express yourself honestly without rudeness or disrespect to others that may have a different or opposing view.

@GoodMan thanks! But you forgot "snarky"! I do not "suffer fools gladly", in fact WTH are these fools annoying me, lol

@AnneWimsey
You know your intent better than anyone, and your “snarkiness” hasn’t been so obvious to me. Perhaps I’ve missed some things or you should try harder...lol

@GoodMan no, one only gets the snark if they richly deserve it......naivete, honesty, wonderment is protective.

@AnneWimsey I understand.

I agree. However, I would add that the challenge lies in the presentation of evidence. What is credible evidence compared to what a deluded mind believes is credible evidence?

@creative51 That all I’ve seen too

Why not? Live and let live.

Sounds lovely. What happens to bad ideas though...

Unfortunately that place exists only in one's imagination.

@AgeofReason Only in utopia..lol I’d prefer not to cherish or celebrate what others believe. I will go as far as to say that I will respect that we have differences, as long as they will respect my space and stay out of my face with theirs....

I can't respect a belief that leads to a bad act. The men that flew planes into buildings did so because of their god belief. How can anyone agree that it was their right to believe what they believed?

@Healthydoc70 My OP was framed in the context of Christianity and their habit of supplanting their views in place of others. Violence, terrorism, or other harmful acts are never ok. I simply believe in the freedom of, and freedom from, religion.

I can agree with that. There are millions of reasons for anything. I think there are reasons not to convert others just because you believe you’re right.

@AgeofReason The question is not "Are there any reasons not to convert" the question is "Are there any reasons to convert." A standing policy of 'let people believe whatever they want' means no converting ever.

@JeffMurray I understood your position. I agree there are good reasons for your position. I happen to hold a different position.

@AgeofReason I'm curious now as to what the motivations are behind it. I'm hard pressed to see advantages so beneficial it is worth not challenging people that think white people are better than black people simply because of the color of their skin or that Jews should be exterminated.

@JeffMurray When I say let people believe what they want, I am referring to religion. My OP was framed in the context of Christianity and their habit of supplanting their views in place of others. No where in my OP did I surmise that racist or other harmful actions are ok, and to infer such is a false equivalency. I simply believe in the freedom of, and freedom from, religion.

@AgeofReason Okay, if someone's religion promoted withholding lifesaving vaccinations and blood products from children (like Jehovah's Witnesses) or practiced the handling of venomous snakes by children, or the withholding of medical treatments or interventions for children (like Christian Scientists or Followers of Christ), [we can even ignore female genital mutilation and mercy killings] should we still "Let them believe what they want"? Your new caveat of an exception for harmful actions completely invalidates your initial claim. What constitutes a harmful act? Who decides? I personally believe teaching any religion to a child is a harmful act because it reduces their ability to think critically and logically and stunts scientific inquiry and progress. So basically what you're saying is everyone should let everyone else believe what they want so long as AgeofReason deems those beliefs harmless?

@JeffMurray you ask, “what constitutes a harmful act? Who decides?” Society, obviously. And we condemn those practices that harm, in a religious context or not. Sitting in a church—harmless. Genital mutilation—reprehensible. Just because I elaborated that we should do no harm does not invalidate my initial claim. I do not support anyone under any circumstance harming another. Let me repeat—I do not support anyone under any circumstance harming another. Now, if you don’t believe people should be free to chose innocuous religions that don’t meet your approval, that’s ok. That’s your belief, and I recognize your freedom to choose that belief.

@AgeofReason Society, huh? Let's see how good society is at it.

All states have laws prohibiting child abuse and neglect. But in 34 states (as well as the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico), there are exemptions in the civil child abuse statutes when medical treatment for a child conflicts with the religious beliefs of parents...

Additionally, some states have religious exemptions to criminal child abuse and neglect statutes, including at least six that have exemptions to manslaughter laws.
...a state task force released a report stating that five children there had died unnecessarily in 2013 because their parents, for religious reasons, had refused medical treatment for them.

[pewresearch.org]

So again, are we all to wait until you've passed judgement on whether any particular practice causes or can cause harm before we let people believe what they want? Everyone has different definitions of what constitutes harm, and your claim that society will decide has obviously failed. Remember, your initial claim was, "Leave people alone! Let them believe what they want." Now it's, "Now, if you don’t believe people should be free to chose innocuous religions that don’t meet your approval, that’s ok. That's your belief, and I recognize your freedom to choose that belief." So I guess in a way, you've already conceded the point that several of us took issue with.

@JeffMurray if you’ll remember, I agreed with you from the beginning that there are good reasons for your position. I simply disagreed with you. You took it as a personal crusade, and in the end, I still disagree with you. It’s seems we’ve reached an impasse.

It’s true that society has failed us sometimes, and that failure is your failure, as much as it’s mine or anyone else.

So far as conceding, yes, I recognize your right to believe you should be able to dictate what others believe in. Up until the point that you hold some position of authority in government, should Trump appoint you. Then I will fight tooth and nail to have you removed, because I do not want to be dictated who should or shouldn’t have 1st amendment rights by you or Trump or anyone else. You will NOT decide what others can believe, so long I can help it.

@AgeofReason To be clear, I'm not saying I should have the right to dictate what people believe because that's literally impossible. I'm just arguing against the philosophy that we should all let people believe whatever that want without challenge or objection. I think you're misinterpreting people's objections to your post.

But I think you proved my point right here:

It’s true that society has failed us sometimes, and that failure is your failure, as much as it’s mine or anyone else.

If society has failed to protect people from runaway religious beliefs, it seems as though it would be more at the feet of people saying "Let people believe whatever they want and society will decide if and when people are crossing the line" than the people saying, "I strongly disagree with the notion that people should be allowed to believe and practice anything they want without objection." Where exactly do you think the laws and the people who write the laws to protect children from crazy religious beliefs come from? Hint: it's people like me who object in the first place. If there were no people like me objecting, there'd be no laws for people like you to say this is where to draw the line (like you did before I showed you how poor a line it was).

@JeffMurray and you said, “ I personally believe teaching any religion to a child is a harmful act because it reduces their ability to think critically and logically and stunts scientific inquiry and progress.” If it were up to you, the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion would be eliminated. I completely disagree with you.

If you put this much effort into eliminating laws protecting those religious beliefs that do cause harm, you could probably get grassroots support started in a positive directive. Just objecting to another non-believer that believers should have no rights because you think it causes harm, makes YOU just as guilty for societies’ failure, if not more. Misspent energy.

You’ve got tons of quotes—not an ounce of prevention. And your brand of prevention is unconstitutional anyway, so you’re a non-starter. I completely and totally disagree with you.

@AgeofReason Woah, woah, woah, I never said I would ban religious belief or practice or that I even wanted to. I simply stated I think it causes harm. I was showing that the "causes harm" rule wouldn't work because everyone has different definitions of what is harmful.

@JeffMurray I was only quoting you, as you have aptly been using my quotes for your position. Zealotry in any form is dangerous, and I will not consent or agree with it. Intolerance is intolerance, in any shape, form, religion, or non-belief. I do not ascribe to your position.

@AgeofReason Intolerance of intolerance is not equivalent to intolerance of something based on an arbitrary reason, but that's a whole other debate.
Yes, you quoted me, but where in that quote does it say I want to ban religion?

@JeffMurray no, intolerance is intolerance in any guise. You have a passion—a zeal—for not wanting others to believe what they want to believe. Your very first sentence in your very first reply to me was, “I have a fundamental problem with this.” Fundamental. Which means freedom to believe, no matter how benign their fairy tales are, goes against your very core.

You attacked the vagueness of my post, which honestly, was just a general “live and let live” with a fun Jesus gets a golden shower joke. You forced me to be more specific to include I only meant the non-threatening social clubs of singing and smiling about some stupid crap that doesn’t exist. Not violence, not murder, not denying children medicine. None of those things are ever appropriate.

In a nutshell, we don’t see eye-to-eye on this issue, and that’s ok. I think we can both agree that people believing ancient mumbo jumbo are dumb. Most of the world is dumb.

@AgeofReason Again, to be clear, my fundamental problem is with the philosophy that has an inability to object to others beliefs/practices, it said nothing of preventing or banning. I think you are again missing the fact that it is impossible to control what other people believe. I don't even believe it's possible to control what you believe yourself, so I would never suggest or endorse a position or philosophy that includes such a thing. I think we agree on a lot more than this thread seems to suggest.

@JeffMurray I agree, we have common beliefs we share, more so than the average person on the street. I wish more people would consider alternatives to their beliefs, because it would open a whole new world of possibilities for them to explore.