No, I do NOT reject God

[JRKH]

It may not be just a matter of trust but a matter of corroboration. I told a coworker of mine that I had a brother. But over the course of the five years that I interacted with her I could never tell her where my brother was, he was always missing from family photographs, and he always managed to be absent when ever she came around. While she considered me an otherwise honest person everything that she was seeing was more consistent with me not having a brother.

(Walk down memory lane, from around 1970 to 1985 on Sesame Street no one believed that Big Bird’s friend Mr. Snuffleupagus existed He finally convinced them of his existence by using a credible lure (food) and arranging for Snuffy to be there at the same time).

I see what you are saying…but then too, the need or corroboration can be tied to the level of trust. The more your friend trusted you, the less she would need corroboration, especially since, as you say above, she considered you, “an otherwise honest person”…
So in this case it would seem to me that this coworker should accept the existence of your brother based on her knowledge of you…

I know this is not directly applicable to the matter of discussing the existence of God…
But I do think it might speak to the matter of our trust and trustworthiness (from both sides) as we present our arguments. The more trustworthy we are…the greater respect our “opponent” will likely have for us. This leads more to trusting the other, and looking more at areas of agreement and understanding rather than grinding away at each other in an adversarial manner.

Peace
James

 

[Robertanthony]

It may not be just a matter of trust but a matter of corroboration. I told a coworker of mine that I had a brother. But over the course of the five years that I interacted with her I could never tell her where my brother was, he was always missing from family photographs, and he always managed to be absent when ever she came around. While she considered me an otherwise honest person everything that she was seeing was more consistent with me not having a brother.

(Walk down memory lane, from around 1970 to 1985 on Sesame Street no one believed that Big Bird’s friend Mr. Snuffleupagus existed He finally convinced them of his existence by using a credible lure (food) and arranging for Snuffy to be there at the same time).

The difference between the belief in the existence of your brother and the existence of God is simply the universe. In the “missing brother scenario”, she has to take what you say at face value, whereas for God, the universe is evidence of his existence. It’s just not plausible and a rationally defendable position that the universe began 13 billion years ago, that there was nothing (neither matter, nor time, nor space), and from matter the universe spontaneously arranged itself and gave rise to human beings capable of thoughts, speech etc. How can matter give rise to intelligence? Perhaps the universe, its mere existence, doesn’t prove the Christian God but an intelligent first cause, but it’s just moronic to think that matter alone without any kind of blue-print could give rise to our complex and orderly universe. You don’t think you can build a house without some kind of plan, tree won’t cut themselves in boards and planks, nails won’t form themselves from iron in the ground, everything won’t magically assemble to make a house, but that’s what you want me to believe about the universe and what gave rise to it. I don’t know for you, but if I had a choice, I’d much rather build a house then create the universe.

 

[JDaniel]

I see what you are saying…but then too, the need or corroboration can be tied to the level of trust. The more your friend trusted you, the less she would need corroboration, especially since, as you say above, she considered you, “an otherwise honest person”…
So in this case it would seem to me that this coworker should accept the existence of your brother based on her knowledge of you…

I know this is not directly applicable to the matter of discussing the existence of God…
But I do think it might speak to the matter of our trust and trustworthiness (from both sides) as we present our arguments. The more trustworthy we are…the greater respect our “opponent” will likely have for us. This leads more to trusting the other, and looking more at areas of agreement and understanding rather than grinding away at each other in an adversarial manner.

Peace
James

James,

I agree. But Lucifer has a great deal of power over those who don’t have God as their most powerful defense against him.

God bless,
jd

 

[sw85]

There is this argument about hell, that God does not send anyone to hell, rather there are people to reject God and God merely grants them their wish. Not a good argument. Non-christians are logically incapable of “rejecting” God, since they do not believe that God exists. Only christians could “reject” God, but I don’t think that they would not do that, since it would make no sense.

Of course the non-christians DO reject the arguments for God’s existence, they DO reject the concept of God. But to say that rejecting the “concept” is the same as rejecting the “alleged referent” of that concept is yet another logical error.

Read up on your philosophy. There is no distinction between “God the concept” and “God the being.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

After skimming the thread, I thought it would be helpful to use an analogy to help clarify the difference between rejecting (or rather, suspending) belief in a god versus rejecting the god.

I got the idea of this analogy from this interesting video, so the credit of this analogy should go to him.

If Theresa asks Anthony on a date and he declines, Anthony has rejected Theresa.

However, lets say Theresa tries to set Anthony up with a blind date with Gloria, but Anthony doesn’t believe that Theresa knows Gloria, is an agent on Gloria’s behalf, or that Gloria even exists (perhaps Theresa described Gloria as too ideal). Is Anthony rejecting Gloria by not believing that Gloria exists (even if Gloria actually does exist)? No.

If, on the other hand, Gloria later contacts Anthony directly and he decides not to go out with her, then he has rejected her.

It is not clear that he is rejecting her because he has not taken the time to get to know her. What he has rejected is the possibility of knowing, and only then, rejecting her.

Certainly, he might know some things “about” Gloria, but in reality Gloria is not those things. She is a person that can only be known after many days, years, perhaps a lifetime, and even then only incompletely.

Now, if Anthony thinks that his brief encounter with Gloria is sufficient to “know her” and this is grounds for rejecting her, then that speaks to the shallow understanding that Anthony has of “others.” This, in fact, would be grounds for Gloria to reject him as a shallow person who would base judgements of others on brief encounters.

Apply this thinking to God. Perhaps we do not reject God so much as take a “shallow” approach to getting to know him. This could be true of believers as well as atheists.

A shallow believer would be one who “believes” because of the things s/he perceives God provides to them. Comfort, wealth, good fortune, eternal life, etc. This is a kind of “gold-digger” mentality where the principle motive for having God around is, not for “who” he is, but for what could be had. God could be dropped as soon as the good things weren’t “being got.”

A shallow atheist, on the other hand, is one who hears some things “about” God that they do not find appealing and, like Anthony, reject the possibility of knowing God because they don’t like what they hear about him. Again, they haven’t taken the time to “get to know” God on a personal level in order to find out for themselves who God is.

Similarly, when someone cannot, in spite of their best efforts to seek evidence for the existence of a deity, believe that a god exists, they are not rejecting the god, they are only rejecting (or rather, suspending) belief of that god.

If, as Theresa’s idealized Gloria, God is “that which none greater can exist,” then it seems to me that settling for anyone less, i.e., doing anything less than pursuing God to the ends of the earth and leaving no stone unturned, to find him, in person, as the object of one’s “meaningful interaction,” would be the same as “rejecting” him.

If Anthony based his “rejection” of Gloria on whatever reasons he decides, he still bears responsibility for his rejection. It was his choice, based upon his terms. If Gloria turns out to be the most amazing creature on God’s earth, Anthony cannot “blame” anyone else for his “rejection” of her. He cannot, with regret, appeal to the fact that he didn’t really get the opportunity to know her well enough, as an excuse. He made the decision to reject the possibility of getting to know her better.

Anthony might retreat to the “Gloria didn’t show her real self,” as an excuse, but as in all relationships, trust must be earned. Gloria may not have revealed herself precisely because she could read Anthony as not completely trustworthy because he appeared to her good judgement to be making shallow assessments of her on their first meeting. He wasn’t operating at a completely sincere level and so didn’t merit a “complete” revelation.

Personal relationships are not the kind of “knowing” that can be built upon knowledge “about” the other, but on a personal encounter with the person him or her self. If Anthony kept insisting that a relationship with Gloria can only be founded upon his knowledge of her that he garners from others or from Googling her name, then he has shown an unreadiness to pursue any kind of relationship with her, except of the most shallow sort. He has rejected the possibility of “knowing” her because he is incapable of it.

 

[Robertanthony]

A shallow atheist, on the other hand, is one who hears some things “about” God that they do not find appealing and, like Anthony, reject the possibility of knowing God because they don’t like what they hear about him. Again, they haven’t taken the time to “get to know” God on a personal level in order to find out for themselves who God is.

If God accepted everyone as they are and condoned anything, do you think so many people would call themselves atheists? As much as they try to make their stance sound rational and well thought-out, atheism is a childish belief that “if I don’t believe in it, it doesn’t exist” or “if I close my eyes, not only do I not see them, but they can’t see me either”. They kind of know intuitively that God exists, but if they don’t like what they hear about him, then they’ll claim they don’t believe because it would inconvenience them to believe (a true inconvenient truth, unlike Al Gore’s book)… It’s basic, child-like denial sophisticatedly dressed as the only conclusion at which a rational person can arrive. I’ve never met an atheist who isn’t a sophist. “There is evil in the world, therefore God doesn’t exist”. “The universe is huge beyond human comprehension, therefore God can’t exist”. “Religion causes wars, ergo God doesn’t exist”

 

[sw85]

Funny story, but philosophically speaking, there is no distinction between “God the concept” and “God the being,” so, really, there is no distinction between “rejecting God as a concept” and “literally rejecting the being who is God.”

I’m not such a fan of the argument to which the OP refers, which I first heard from the Protestant C.S. Lewis. Like most good arguments, there’s a grain of truth in it. The child who is punished by his father, or the criminal who is imprisoned by the state, can in a sense be said to have “chosen” his fate because he chose the behaviors which are logically connected thereto. That doesn’t make his punishment voluntary. He is still punished by his father, or by the justice system, respectively.

Now that his punishment is involuntary also doesn’t mean it’s irrational, unjust, etc. The child thinks he can lie to his father and get away with it because HE is irrational. The prisoner thought he could steal someone’s car, leave it parked in front of his house, and no one would notice, because HE is irrational. All sin is a species of ignorance, irrationality, and madness. It is still objectively the case that lying to your father gets you spanked and stealing a car lands you in jail. And it is still the case that the gates of the prison are locked from the outside, not the inside.

Part of the reason for this argument, I think, is a desire to reconcile Christianity to the liberal worship of the utterly autonomous self. Hell is “OK” because, after all, you chose it, and it can’t possibly be bad for you to choose anything, right? Well, no.

The historical understanding of Hell has always been that it is a place wherein the wicked are justly punished for their sins, which are of infinite magnitude against the Creator to whom they owe infinite obedience and gratitude. That’s the only one that makes sense. And yes, one of those sins includes disbelief, which, except in the extremely rare case of invincible ignorance, is always to some extent culpable. Our OP isn’t ignorant of what the Church teaches, though he maybe doesn’t understand it fully (though is anything but his own pride standing in the way of his coming to understand it more fully?). If he’s not ignorant, he’s not invincibly ignorant. If he’s not invincibly ignorant, he’s not off the hook.

 

[JRKH]

Peter Plato,
An excellent post above…you have expressed some things I had not thought of and some ideas that occurred to me but I just couldn’t “get a hold of”. Thank you…

I’m going back to reread it again…

Peace
James

 

[Portofino]

If, as Theresa’s idealized Gloria, God is “that which none greater can exist,” then it seems to me that settling for anyone less, i.e., doing anything less than pursuing God to the ends of the earth and leaving no stone unturned, to find him, in person, as the object of one’s “meaningful interaction,” would be the same as “rejecting” him.

If Anthony based his “rejection” of Gloria on whatever reasons he decides, he still bears responsibility for his rejection. It was his choice, based upon his terms. If Gloria turns out to be the most amazing creature on God’s earth, Anthony cannot “blame” anyone else for his “rejection” of her. He cannot, with regret, appeal to the fact that he didn’t really get the opportunity to know her well enough, as an excuse. He made the decision to reject the possibility of getting to know her better.

Anthony might retreat to the “Gloria didn’t show her real self,” as an excuse, but as in all relationships, trust must be earned. Gloria may not have revealed herself precisely because she could read Anthony as not completely trustworthy because he appeared to her good judgement to be making shallow assessments of her on their first meeting. He wasn’t operating at a completely sincere level and so didn’t merit a “complete” revelation.

Personal relationships are not the kind of “knowing” that can be built upon knowledge “about” the other, but on a personal encounter with the person him or her self. If Anthony kept insisting that a relationship with Gloria can only be founded upon his knowledge of her that he garners from others or from Googling her name, then he has shown an unreadiness to pursue any kind of relationship with her, except of the most shallow sort. He has rejected the possibility of “knowing” her because he is incapable of it.

In the world as it actually exists, it is not simply “Gloria” that we are being told to get to know, given that there are competing religions. Others are saying the equivalent of, “no, not Gloria – Sally!” Still others are saying, “not Gloria or Sally – Betty!” It gets even more complicated than that, where you have followers of Gloria saying, “we are Gloria’s true followers”, while others say, “no, we are Gloria’s true followers – don’t listen to those others who say otherwise!” You would have the added complication that Gloria’s followers are not perfect – for example, they may behave in very “un-Gloria-like” ways. This could serve to “turn people off” to Gloria, based on things that have been done in Gloria’s name.

But the biggest challenge in comparing a Supreme Being to a woman one would date is that it is self-evident that Glorias, Sallys, and Bettys exist in the world. The existence of a Supreme Being is a lot trickier, because we do not have well-established frames of reference. For example, if a person were invisible, intangible, and never spoke, we would have no grounds upon which to establish that person’s actual existence. With a Supreme Being, the criteria for establishing existence are supposed to be different – yet not everyone can agree as to what those criteria are.

Of course, you could say that a person is culpable for not spending his or her entire life, trying to get in touch with this Supreme Being. But how does that person know where to direct his energies? Has a Catholic, for example, spent a lifetime pursuing Mormonism? Or Islam? If Gloria is really Allah, are they “not excused” for not having spent a lifetime in attempting to get to know Gloria better, even if – at first blush, or after reading a book about it, or visiting a mosque – they concluded that it was not really worth their time? Would a Catholic say unequivocally that he has “rejected” Allah? “Refused” to spend his life in getting to know him better?

If a believer wants to understand where the atheist is coming from vis-a-vis Christianity, he need only think of his own relationship towards Islam or Mormonism…

One final thought is that, for all I know, Gloria’s followers are much, much harder on those who do not believe in Gloria, than Gloria herself is. She is omnipotent and omniscient, and those who do not believe in her are certainly not that. In fact, those who fallibly embrace the existence of Gloria may distort the true nature of Gloria’s character, more than those who had never contemplated Gloria in the first place.

 

[davidv]

In the world as it actually exists, it is not simply “Gloria” that we are being told to get to know, given that there are competing religions. Others are saying the equivalent of, “no, not Gloria – Sally!” Still others are saying, “not Gloria or Sally – Betty!” It gets even more complicated than that, where you have followers of Gloria saying, “we are Gloria’s true followers”, while others say, “no, we are Gloria’s true followers – don’t listen to those others who say otherwise!” You would have the added complication that Gloria’s followers are not perfect – for example, they may behave in very “un-Gloria-like” ways. This could serve to “turn people off” to Gloria, based on things that have been done in Gloria’s name.

But the biggest challenge in comparing a Supreme Being to a woman one would date is that it is self-evident that Glorias, Sallys, and Bettys exist in the world. The existence of a Supreme Being is a lot trickier, because we do not have well-established frames of reference. For example, if a person were invisible, intangible, and never spoke, we would have no grounds upon which to establish that person’s actual existence. With a Supreme Being, the criteria for establishing existence are supposed to be different – yet not everyone can agree as to what those criteria are.

Of course, you could say that a person is culpable for not spending his or her entire life, trying to get in touch with this Supreme Being. But how does that person know where to direct his energies? Has a Catholic, for example, spent a lifetime pursuing Mormonism? Or Islam? If Gloria is really Allah, are they “not excused” for not having spent a lifetime in attempting to get to know Gloria better, even if – at first blush, or after reading a book about it, or visiting a mosque – they concluded that it was not really worth their time? Would a Catholic say unequivocally that he has “rejected” Allah? “Refused” to spend his life in getting to know him better?

If a believer wants to understand where the atheist is coming from vis-a-vis Christianity, he need only think of his own relationship towards Islam or Mormonism…

One final thought is that, for all I know, Gloria’s followers are much, much harder on those who do not believe in Gloria, than Gloria herself is. She is omnipotent and omniscient, and those who do not believe in her are certainly not that. In fact, those who fallibly embrace the existence of Gloria may distort the true nature of Gloria’s character, more than those who had never contemplated Gloria in the first place.

And it still boils down to you do you trust.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the world as it actually exists, it is not simply “Gloria” that we are being told to get to know, given that there are competing religions. Others are saying the equivalent of, “no, not Gloria – Sally!” Still others are saying, “not Gloria or Sally – Betty!” It gets even more complicated than that, where you have followers of Gloria saying, “we are Gloria’s true followers”, while others say, “no, we are Gloria’s true followers – don’t listen to those others who say otherwise!” You would have the added complication that Gloria’s followers are not perfect – for example, they may behave in very “un-Gloria-like” ways. This could serve to “turn people off” to Gloria, based on things that have been done in Gloria’s name.

**Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20)
**

But the biggest challenge in comparing a Supreme Being to a woman one would date is that it is self-evident that Glorias, Sallys, and Bettys exist in the world. The existence of a Supreme Being is a lot trickier, because we do not have well-established frames of reference. For example, if a person were invisible, intangible, and never spoke, we would have no grounds upon which to establish that person’s actual existence. With a Supreme Being, the criteria for establishing existence are supposed to be different – yet not everyone can agree as to what those criteria are.

As a true refugee from justice, having been tried and executed, an unrelenting lover, having risen from the dead to pursue his beloved humankind, there is only one place left for God to hide and find asylum, the one place where his pursuers would never even think of looking: squirreled away inside the very self of each person.

So unlike, the ideal Gloria or Sally, perhaps the pursuit should be turned inward. Socrates said, “Know thyself!” I cannot help thinking that this was a prophetic message.

If God has hidden himself in the “true self” of each person, then there can be no excuse for rejecting him, since the very reason God, if this is the case, has not been found, is because the individual has not found himself and, thus, not become himself. Can we be found culpable of not being “true” to ourselves? Of not “knowing” oneself? Of rejecting oneself?

For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? (Mark 8:36)
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit,* if the Spirit of God lives in you**. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. (Romans 8: 9-12)*

 

[Peter_Plato]

One final thought is that, for all I know, Gloria’s followers are much, much harder on those who do not believe in Gloria, than Gloria herself is. She is omnipotent and omniscient, and those who do not believe in her are certainly not that. In fact, those who fallibly embrace the existence of Gloria may distort the true nature of Gloria’s character, more than those who had never contemplated Gloria in the first place.

Maybe so, but to use that as an excuse for not getting to know Gloria herself becomes a problem only for anyone who makes that an excuse for not getting to know her personally. The truth is you didn’t get to know Gloria because you put too much store in your reliance on how others portrayed her rather than getting to know her yourself.

 

[Biblepoe]

You make a good point here with a fine analogy.
I believe that what we should take away from this is the idea of examining our own motives and methods in approaching one another. In the above analogy, Anthony has problems trusting Theresa and I guess, Therese’s motives…Why? As sincere Christians or sincere Atheists we should each consider why we have trouble trusting one another. How can we each improve our communication and our brotherly love toward each other so as to move more closely to Truth.

Interesting take.

However, I think one should keep in mind that one can trust another person (in the sense that he/she thinks the other person is sincere) yet still disagree with the other person. Person A can be fully convinced that person B is sincere about her belief in a god yet not believe in a god himself/herself, but the same doesn’t really apply to the blind date. That’s one of the few problems with the excellent analogy I stole from the video.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter Plato,
An excellent post above…you have expressed some things I had not thought of and some ideas that occurred to me but I just couldn’t “get a hold of”. Thank you…

I’m going back to reread it again…

Peace
James

I am interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[zro_x]

Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20)

As a true refugee from justice, having been tried and executed, an unrelenting lover, having risen from the dead to pursue his beloved humankind, there is only one place left for God to hide and find asylum, the one place where his pursuers would never even think of looking: squirreled away inside the very self of each person.

So unlike, the ideal Gloria or Sally, perhaps the pursuit should be turned inward. Socrates said, “Know thyself!” I cannot help thinking that this was a prophetic message.

If God has hidden himself in the “true self” of each person, then there can be no excuse for rejecting him, since the very reason God, if this is the case, has not been found, is because the individual has not found himself and, thus, not become himself. Can we be found culpable of not being “true” to ourselves? Of not “knowing” oneself? Of rejecting oneself?

For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? (Mark 8:36)
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit,* if the Spirit of God lives in you***. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. (Romans 8: 9-12)

I am now a catholic-leaning agnostic(I believe that God and the validity of the Church is probable, but not certain), and have lived my moral life under the assumption that Catholicism is true for two or three years now. I can relate on some level to being an atheist because I was an atheist-leaning agnostic for a few years before that. During that period, I couldn’t find God, or what he wanted, by looking within myself on most occasions. Even when I thought that I had made some sort of connection, I could never be sure whether that connection was just myself, or even the devil. I still have that problem today. It is dangerous to follow the promptings of the heart. Those that do often end up ecoming militantly religious. I came to accept God through reason alone. Atheists who sincerely seek the truth can not be said to reject God because they have not been made aware of the valid arguments for his existence.

 

[Robertanthony]

Interesting take.

However, I think one should keep in mind that one can trust another person (in the sense that he/she thinks the other person is sincere) yet still disagree with the other person. Person A can be fully convinced that person B is sincere about her belief in a god yet not believe in a god himself/herself, but the same doesn’t really apply to the blind date. That’s one of the few problems with the excellent analogy I stole from the video.

Biblepoe, if you don’t remove “Pastafarian” from you profile, I will report you. It takes some nerve (not to mention anything else) to come here on a Catholic forum using that term, which was coined by atheists to mock God/religion/believers. I like your humility, too: you come here to make us think! Have you noticed that an atheist is generally treated with respect here but the same can’t be said of Christians who go on atheists’ forums/fora, where the “enlightened” God-deniers will tear him/her to pieces, mocking both him/her and his/her intelligence? Again, you using that nasty term demonstrates poor judgment and lack of basic respect for us Catholics and the God we worship. Remove it.

BTW, do you know what the Bible says about someone who says in his heart, “There is no God”? That you come here to make us think, I find quite absurd in that regard.

 

[Giants]

Biblepoe, if you don’t remove “Pastafarian” from you profile, I will report you. It takes some nerve (not to mention anything else) to come here on a Catholic forum using that term, which was coined by atheists to mock God/religion/believers. I like your humility, too: you come here to make us think! Have you noticed that an atheist is generally treated with respect here but the same can’t be said of Christians who go on atheists’ forums/fora, where the “enlightened” God-deniers will tear him/her to pieces, mocking both him/her and his/her intelligence? Again, you using that nasty term demonstrates poor judgment and lack of basic respect for us Catholics and the God we worship. Remove it.

There’s nothing wrong with ‘Pastafarian.’

 

[Robertanthony]

There’s nothing wrong with ‘Pastafarian.’

Says the guy/gal with “none” next to “religion”. Try again. “None” is not disrespectful, the other term is.

 

[fred_conty]

There’s nothing wrong with ‘Pastafarian.’

It is disrespectful to God and to us.

 

[zro_x]

Biblepoe, if you don’t remove “Pastafarian” from you profile, I will report you. It takes some nerve (not to mention anything else) to come here on a Catholic forum using that term, which was coined by atheists to mock God/religion/believers. I like your humility, too: you come here to make us think! Have you noticed that an atheist is generally treated with respect here but the same can’t be said of Christians who go on atheists’ forums/fora, where the “enlightened” God-deniers will tear him/her to pieces, mocking both him/her and his/her intelligence? Again, you using that nasty term demonstrates poor judgment and lack of basic respect for us Catholics and the God we worship. Remove it.

BTW, do you know what the Bible says about someone who says in his heart, “There is no God”? That you come here to make us think, I find quite absurd in that regard.

Says the guy/gal with “none” next to “religion”.

How about someone with Catholic next to their name?
It seems to me that to report someone before they’ve actually said something disrespectful is premature and similar to the attacks you say that you’re against.

BTW, I’ve seen several atheists mocked and belittled here. Nobody has a monopoly on civility.