Your 3 main reasons

[Violet]

Where did I say your worst members were theists? Simply that theism can be and IS dangerous, signs of that are clear throughout history

Fact is that science can be an IS dangerous, signs of that are clear throughout history.

I was addressing the two posters in the thread at the time, ONE of whom was a deist. I am fully aware of the number and diversity of members on this board.. A main reason when choosing to see what this place is all about

There are other boards with far more people in them (and of course that means much more diverse probably).

...My grammar??.. jus' saying (is this really the issue here? I never said I am an english student)

I absolutely could not make sense of the first sentence in that quoted portion. Hence my comment about it being difficult.

Precisely why should I not want to move on given that it has been made clear by most posters here that life was better beforehand. Also does it not show some desire for community the fact that I am still around attempting to defend myself, why would I not have just unsubbed the thread and moved on. How long does this "earning trust and respect" thing take when in reality I'm here for debate not to take a position of power or look after your kids.

It does indeed show some desire to do so, although this would be far clearer if you posted in other threads as well. Observe that Holubice (a new guy) only posts in his introduction thread... he really doesn't seem to be here for the community, but to simply preach. It really isn't apparent that you are not similar to the likes of him when you behave not dissimilarly (instead of preaching you could simply be here to argue). My recommendation is to post in other threads as well, especially an introduction thread

And you wouldn't say that stalin's regime wasn't atrocious?

Of course it was, I never said ALL in my post regarding that matter.. Of course there are one hell of a lot of wrongdoings done NOT in the name of a god, but just look at The Crusades (Obvious), The holocaust (Hitler was xtian and 'jews killed his saviour dag-nabbit'), The numerous inquisitions throughout history, t palestinian/israeli conflict, Terrorism, Witch-hunts, The still raging muslim/sikh feuds and fighting, Anything Jihad, Honor killings for girls who give birth before marriage in Islam, 'Corrective rape' sometimes even by family members to cure lesbianism, Recent indonesian violence amongst muslims of different sections of the faith....Not to mention the fact the vatican condoned slavery in all its forms and until recently disregarded condoms as a stop to the spread of AIDs. Genuinely the list goes on, and the death toll in the few I have listed probably runs into the billions even with the most conservative of estimations of death tolls

Stalin was an atheist that did things most people deem evil, infact he had anti-religious policies. As it turns out, 'horrible' things are done by people (not religion). I see no reason to presume that because people joined together under 'banner X' that it was in any way 'banner X' which should be charged with what was done.

Take the Spanish inquisition for example. Sure, the reasons that people performed it might well have been religious, but the religion itself tortured/killed not a single person. Disguising the darkness that people can sink into by claiming it was religion that is responsible is quite mad as I see things

In defence of my second point which you so easily refuted, I simply point you toward the in depth research done into split brain patients and the left hemispheres function to hold a persons idea, regardless of the evidence, and rationalize the evidence to suit its need. There is proof out there that what I say is true, this was not just a top-of-the-head comment.

Proof also is subjective. Note that science is an intersubjective practice. It appears to be verifiable by at least many of us, and it is this (likely) which you were referring to when you speak of evidence. It is not evidence that you are looking for therefore... but scientific evidence. The same holds true for 'proof', where the type you would likely seek is 'logical proof' or even 'proven by testing'.

It is a great mistake to seek unspecified evidence. Hence my refutation, for your argument is poorly worded in spite of its intent.

Thirdly I mention an inflated, undeserved sense of worth. To backup this point instead of evidence (as it is a very subjective point to begin with) I shall simply compare the religious idea of life to what I see to be the more logical understanding.
Religious- god MADE me, he went out of his way to put the pieces together in such a way that I am me..Therefore I am already great, because I am made by the divine to be exactly what he planned me to be.

non-religious- I am here through a series of events set in motion 16 billion years ago. In that time scale I am only here for a very limited and insignificant amount of time. Therefore I must spend that time being the best I can and leaving an impression on those who are yet to exist otherwise what was the point

Worth is decided individually, what appears to be inflated and undeserved to you is quite diminutive and as a result of accomplishment to others. Both of you are correct, as worth is subjective.

'God' doesn't go out of 'His' way when 'He' is the way and all things are as a result of his 'plan'. If 'God' made everything: everything has the worth of having been made by 'God'. The self often already being a highly valued, this gains an added value still of having been made by 'God'. The religious person, valuing 'God' quite highly, then can reasonably say that they are worth a great deal. Add that 'God' has a plan for them, and this can explode into an extremely high value of self.

The non-religious example is very community oriented. Some of us don't care about what impression we leave: those ones care only about doing what it is they want. Why always do the best one can? I don't always do the best I can, most things aren't worth it to me. The time in which I am here is not insignificant to me and does not feel particularly limited, and I have a very high value of myself. You presume oddly that there is a point to living. The point is what you declare it. Naught more

I find that in the non-religious view (obviously that is not everyone's) that the onus is on you to be the best you can, for yourself and for your species, to live on in memory and influence. Whereas, the religious view tends to be that, while not without sin, humans are exactly what god expected them to be, and therefore so long as you try to be good enough you'll live forever. Also across many religions this world is just a trial before the real goal, which I find a wholly wasteful outlook on life

It's a wasteful outlook on life to have a goal and to try to accomplish it?

Finally, thankyou THEvoid. 3 interesting reasons although could I possibly ask for more detail as I feel I may have got a bit lost in some of your sentences (yeah, I know I ramble a ridiculous amount)

His reasons are actually very good ones. If you spend much time here you'll learn precisely what he means in time