DVDizzy Forum

what i think is people still have faith because

1 theres still beauty in nature and we obviously think animals cant think so we equate it with intellect.

2 nobody wants to think that things happen randomly. otherwise they'd question the meaning of their own lives which are all too often nothing more than pushing papers, and earning too little of them

ajmrowland wrote:what i think is people still have faith because

1 theres still beauty in nature and we obviously think animals cant think so we equate it with intellect.

2 nobody wants to think that things happen randomly. otherwise they'd question the meaning of their own lives which are all too often nothing more than pushing papers, and earning too little of them

Pretty much.

Whenever I get all depressed thinking about my existence, I just look up at the stars. The universe is a beautiful place and the elements that make up my body came from there and to there they will eventually return, travelling the expanse of the cosmos - something I've always wanted to experience but most likely won't. So, it might not be heaven and my consciousness will cease to exist but, in a weird way, I'll be travelling across the universe. Pretty comforting thought.

I've voiced my religious beliefs before but I actually cannot comprehend the existence of a creator. Right now, I might not be able to conclusively answer how something came from nothing (quantum fluctuations etc. etc.) and it may be rather confusing but God just creates more questions than answers. How did God come into existence? That would be much more difficult to answer.

yamiiguy wrote:Right now, I might not be able to conclusively answer how something came from nothing (quantum fluctuations etc. etc.) and it may be rather confusing but God just creates more questions than answers. How did God come into existence? That would be much more difficult to answer.

But that's the whole point of God! We cannot understand how he came to be. We just have to accept that.

Of course it does make us Catholics look a bit like dumb sheep, but ...

Julian Carter wrote:

yamiiguy wrote:Right now, I might not be able to conclusively answer how something came from nothing (quantum fluctuations etc. etc.) and it may be rather confusing but God just creates more questions than answers. How did God come into existence? That would be much more difficult to answer.

But that's the whole point of God! We cannot understand how he came to be. We just have to accept that.

Of course it does make us Catholics look a bit like dumb sheep, but ...

Yes. Yes it does...

Disney Duster wrote:But people will always believe things no matter what you do, and the ones that believe in the same things will want to gather and feel good being together with their similarities. That is what organized religion is, and surely you see to try to destroy that is actually a very cruel and oppresive thing.

I know some people will always people will always believe things, but I aim to put those people in the minority. Despite what has been done throughout history, there is no doubt that there will still be racism, sexism and homophobia in the developed world for many years, perhaps forever, but those who are prejudiced against people because of their gender, race or sexuality will hopefully be in the minority (arguably, most already are). In my eyes, destroying religion and teaching people that God is a ridiculous concept is 'oppressive' in the same way as teaching people that being discriminatory against women, blacks, homosexuals, et cetera is wrong.

Disney Duster wrote:You're just viewing what I said negatively. It's as simple as if there are parts of the Bible that I can't accept or make me happy, then I can't believe them. The difference between you and me is I try to accept them by having spiritual faith and positivity, but you don't use faith at all, you refuse, you choose to only use logic and try think of any negative points to refute anything in it.

For the love of...I'm sensing a pattern here. You look at my arguments, think they're negative, and then automatically regard me as wrong. Hell, you'll probably reply admitting to this and trying to justify it. I'm not nitpicking; most of your revolting and offensive Holy Book is outdated, archaic, vile shit and mythical nonsense.

Like in the survival instinct thread, you claim to realise that something positive isn't the same as something being true, yet you continue to say that you choose to believe the parts of the Bible that make you happy, but ignore the homophobia and similar things like that. I tried to say this before (but you ignored it as usual), but that obviously means that you get your morals from somewhere else; not from God, but from yourself. Which means that the Bible is not necessary for morals, and shows that your belief in God may not be as strong as you claim.

Disney Duster wrote:It's more probable in making more sense and feeling more right. The idea of a loving God who always was, souls, an afterlife, Jesus, the commandments and some stories from the Bible, just at least seems to go more with everything we have known and heard about in life than the lobster.

FEELS MORE RIGHT?! FEELS MORE RIGHT?!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c7LrViaPq7M" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Disney Duster wrote:That's not the kind of feeling I'm talking about. That's a feeling about the phyiscality of something. Not the feeling of spirituality. Anyway it doesn't matter. What matters is using what feels right until its disproven. The Earth being flat was disproven, other stuff hasn't been.

My point was obviously that any 'feeling', be it of physicality, spirituality, whatever...that's not sufficient evidence.

Disney Duster wrote:You can choose to have faith. You aren't trying. It's a simple as choosing to believe. You might as well say you can't make any choices in life at all.

Can you choose to believe in Santa again? Don't you dare say: "We know for a fact he isn't real, God hasn't been disproven..." That's not the fucking point. If you know in your mind that something is false, you cannot completely make yourself believe it's true. You can't choose to believe in God. It's not that I won't try hard enough, it's because I understand the term 'belief in belief' and know that some people consider it good to believe in God and try to make themselves believe in him; consciously, they may think he's real, but deep down in their subconscious, they know that he's not real. Maybe you're one of those people.

Disney Duster wrote:Nope. What I believe is God is not strictly just what I read in the Bible. What I believe in an trust is God is what I feel inside myself the same as how I feel happiness from being able to be gay. They are one in the same.

Are you sure that your 'God' is not just another manifestation of an imaginary friend, somebody to talk to and somebody who will always watch over and love you?

Disney Duster wrote:No its not. In order for that example to work that would be God "saying don't use evidence at the crime scene against me", which is not what's happening because you don't know if any of the stuff you call "evidence" actually is God's word or even if you're interpreting right or even if your using it as evidence in the right way.

The simile I used may not work completely, but my main point still stands - you were complaining about me pointing out the negative parts of the Bible, which is the foundation of your beliefs. If I'm trying to criticise your beliefs, then it makes perfect sense for me to point out the bad parts of them.

Disney Duster wrote:No you still don't definately know if he'd get the cure. It probably means what they ask will be granted only if it's what must happen according to God's plan. The people hearing Jesus probably understood that. But you want to take what is said literally and to an extrem just to support your negative view. Or maybe you think too literally. I bet that could be a big part of it.

In regards to your first point, let’s say in my example that the man did die, and didn’t get cured; it’s not too hard to believe. And if God has a plan which you’re not allowed to alter, then what’s the bloody point in praying? If God is going to help you or ignore you regardless of whether you pray or not, if he already has a complex plot of what will happen to everyone, then praying is utterly pointless in that sense.

Also, praying wouldn’t provide much hope if God does have an absolute, unalterable plan, because all those who pray should know that according to their religion, if they pray or not is irrelevant, because God has already pre-emptively mapped out everything that will ever happen. Heck, even if did give hope, as my example suggested, in many scenarios it could give false hope, and even make people doubt their faith when their prayers went unanswered.

Heartless wrote:I was addressing the fact that you said that science cannot be "truly known,"- to quote you. You keep saying that some of my examples only "seem like facts." How aren't they facts? Those were some of the most basic scientific principles of the world. I understand when you say that things in science constantly change, but that really only refers to grand theories about things.. Not about basic scientific facts we can experience on a daily basis.

Yes. Well even some of the hard facts...you never know. Yes I know we can super duper duper sure but you never know. That's all I'm saying.

Heartless wrote:By the way, it's not what science thinks about the world. Science explains exactly how things happen in the world. It's not subjective, and in my opinion its imperative for people to get an understanding of how the world around them functions. It is not imperative for them to be taught what "some people think spiritually exists in the world." If a parent wants to do that to their kids, that is a different story...

I would say that being taught just enough to live and be happy is what's most important to be taught first (and being happy and wanting to live can indeed include spirituality), then would come being taught spirituality which is about what would happen when/how to prepare for after you die, loving your creator, and giving additional happiness and not ignore this pivotal aspect of life, then would come learning the other things about your world which is really just education that continuously changes and is added to and you keep learning on and on as you grow.

Heartless wrote:No, I continued and said that there may be someone out there who actually believes this. The point isn't what the theory is, it's that there are theories out there that are based on observations that you would think are foolish and nonsensical that people truly believe. Just because you know I made that up to counter your argument doesn't mean you know I don't truly believe a theory about life that you think is silly (which still wouldn't make it any less logical than yours!)

Okay then. I get what you're saying.

Heartless wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: Because it's hope and it's positive.

I believe that to be a lousy reason. If that's all it takes for believing in something, then believing in some other life-after-death phenomenon after you die (that you would say is completely ridiculous) shouldn't be a problem. Basically you are saying that believing in God and heaven makes you feel better about yourself while you are alive, thinking there is a place to go. Oh, and its more 'logical' than anyone else's life-after-death theory. It's pretty selfish if you ask me.

Well, yes you have to combine what I said with other things I said. It's all of it, believing in something hopeful, as afterall it hasn't been proven wrong, and there's also a book that is supposed to be sacred and contain the word of God and details of a religion that, so it was written down from back then, God told people about himself, and then what do you like and makes sense to you? And by the way it doesn't just make you feel better in having a place to go, it also can uplift you thinking you're more and beyond what only science says you are in it's strict cold physical terms.

Oh, I wanted to thank you for trying hard to see why I was saying about Jesus' word for that one quote. I am not sure but I think you're the first person I've debated this stuff with to really make me feel like you were trying to get me, and even though I'm not sure if you reached it, but maybe you did at least that one, I really thank you for trying. That's actually rather kind and, well, quite the opposite of heartless of you.

Yay Julian Carter!

yamiiguy wrote:Whenever I get all depressed thinking about my existence, I just look up at the stars. The universe is a beautiful place and the elements that make up my body came from there and to there they will eventually return, travelling the expanse of the cosmos - something I've always wanted to experience but most likely won't. So, it might not be heaven and my consciousness will cease to exist but, in a weird way, I'll be travelling across the universe. Pretty comforting thought.

I've voiced my religious beliefs before but I actually cannot comprehend the existence of a creator. Right now, I might not be able to conclusively answer how something came from nothing (quantum fluctuations etc. etc.) and it may be rather confusing but God just creates more questions than answers. How did God come into existence? That would be much more difficult to answer.

Its interesting. When I stopped believing in God in a depression I had, I looked up at the stars going "I used to think there was something deep and mysterious up in there, more than the physical I saw, the burning gas. Now I think...its nothing"...

You said you couldn't comprehend the idea of God. It actually think it took guts to say that, and I commend you for your honesty. It makes me wonder if this is the big nail on the head for why a lot of people don't believe in God. Well, kind of like Julian Carter said, we aren't supposed to fully understand God. But it is a little bit more, about the existence of everything, that we can get. You don't think you can get or comprehend everything in the universe, right? Why must God be different? All the belief in God, by itself, really is is, what made everything exist? What was powerful enough to make, as you said, something come from nothing? Something so powerful, it didn't need to come from something else, maybe it always existed, and we can only merely understand the idea of that, not any process of how it works or anything like that, for something that big and amazing, for a being beyond us. And that being which created love and humans, the highest intelligent beings we can be sure of existing, must also feel love and be somewhat like humans. That's all the idea and belief of God needs to be.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I know some people will always people will always believe things, but I aim to put those people in the minority. Despite what has been done throughout history, there is no doubt that there will still be racism, sexism and homophobia in the developed world for many years, perhaps forever, but those who are prejudiced against people because of their gender, race or sexuality will hopefully be in the minority (arguably, most already are). In my eyes, destroying religion and teaching people that God is a ridiculous concept is 'oppressive' in the same way as teaching people that being discriminatory against women, blacks, homosexuals, et cetera is wrong.

This is one of the things about you, I'm sorry to say, that I think is evil. Educating people, debating with them, is not evil in the slightest. But having a desire to crush and destroy the beliefs that keep people happy is.

What would your end result be? That everyone just accepts facts and no one's allowed to form their own beliefs otherwise? Everyone must conform to your will, like Hitler? That everyone in the future would have the kinds of happiness of physical and emotional things of life, but the ideas of God and spirituality, and being able to share that with others, would be dead, and they'd never be able to have the kind of happiness that only come from that, ever again? Never able to think of that again? And that would make you happy? That's what you want?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Like in the survival instinct thread, you claim to realise that something positive isn't the same as something being true, yet you continue to say that you choose to believe the parts of the Bible that make you happy, but ignore the homophobia and similar things like that. I tried to say this before (but you ignored it as usual), but that obviously means that you get your morals from somewhere else; not from God, but from yourself. Which means that the Bible is not necessary for morals, and shows that your belief in God may not be as strong as you claim.

I explained why it does not come from just the Bible and does not come just from me. If you're going to continue to think otherwise that's all you.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:My point was obviously that any 'feeling', be it of physicality, spirituality, whatever...that's not sufficient evidence.

And my point is it's not efficient evidence for you and other people who demand more, but at least its something.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Can you choose to believe in Santa again? Don't you dare say: "We know for a fact he isn't real, God hasn't been disproven..." That's not the fucking point. If you know in your mind that something is false, you cannot completely make yourself believe it's true. You can't choose to believe in God. It's not that I won't try hard enough, it's because I understand the term 'belief in belief' and know that some people consider it good to believe in God and try to make themselves believe in him; consciously, they may think he's real, but deep down in their subconscious, they know that he's not real. Maybe you're one of those people.

I actually could choose to believe in Santa, but it would be hard, I admit, and it would be choosing to believe in something that I know doesn't exist and I even know how he was made up and that people lie about him. But with God, in our infinite and mysterious universe there is not enough to say belief in a God alone or any spirituality for that matter is too unlikely. Anyway, I do actually feel I know God exists. And this was after I stopped believing for a while and really thought very deeply about the matter. One thing was I finally figured there was no reason I couldn't think he existed, so why choose not to?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Are you sure that your 'God' is not just another manifestation of an imaginary friend, somebody to talk to and somebody who will always watch over and love you?

Yes I am sure. As sure as any human being can be, especially one going very deep into his own mind and thinking very deeply on the matter.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:The simile I used may not work completely, but my main point still stands - you were complaining about me pointing out the negative parts of the Bible, which is the foundation of your beliefs. If I'm trying to criticise your beliefs, then it makes perfect sense for me to point out the bad parts of them.

I'm sure you'll keep thinking your point stands but I say it doesn't because I do not regard the entire Bible as all of my beliefs or even use only the Bible for said beliefs.

Disney Duster wrote:;Disney Duster"]No you still don't definately know if he'd get the cure. It probably means what they ask will be granted only if it's what must happen according to God's plan. The people hearing Jesus probably understood that. But you want to take what is said literally and to an extrem just to support your negative view. Or maybe you think too literally. I bet that could be a big part of it.

In regards to your first point, let’s say in my example that the man did die, and didn’t get cured; it’s not too hard to believe. And if God has a plan which you’re not allowed to alter, then what’s the bloody point in praying? If God is going to help you or ignore you regardless of whether you pray or not, if he already has a complex plot of what will happen to everyone, then praying is utterly pointless in that sense.

Also, praying wouldn’t provide much hope if God does have an absolute, unalterable plan, because all those who pray should know that according to their religion, if they pray or not is irrelevant, because God has already pre-emptively mapped out everything that will ever happen. Heck, even if did give hope, as my example suggested, in many scenarios it could give false hope, and even make people doubt their faith when their prayers went unanswered.[/quote]
I already answered this kind of thing with Goliath before. It is in God's plan for people to pray to him, and for him to perhaps grant it. The only thing a prayer is supposed to change is the current situation you see or hope will/won't happen before your eyes, not to change God's plan.

Disney Duster wrote: Its interesting. When I stopped believing in God in a depression I had, I looked up at the stars going "I used to think there was something deep and mysterious up in there, more than the physical I saw, the burning gas. Now I think...its nothing"...

You said you couldn't comprehend the idea of God. It actually think it took guts to say that, and I commend you for your honesty. It makes me wonder if this is the big nail on the head for why a lot of people don't believe in God. Well, kind of like Julian Carter said, we aren't supposed to fully understand God. But it is a little bit more, about the existence of everything, that we can get. You don't think you can get or comprehend everything in the universe, right? Why must God be different? All the belief in God, by itself, really is is, what made everything exist? What was powerful enough to make, as you said, something come from nothing? Something so powerful, it didn't need to come from something else, maybe it always existed, and we can only merely understand the idea of that, not any process of how it works or anything like that, for something that big and amazing, for a being beyond us. And that being which created love and humans, the highest intelligent beings we can be sure of existing, must also feel love and be somewhat like humans. That's all the idea and belief of God needs to be.

Humanity as a whole has come from comprehending practically nothing to almost everything in less than 150 years and there are numerous theories that could plug the gaps, if proven (and first, technology has to improve in order to test them).

God can never be proven to exist, by definition. We have no proof that he does exist and any proof that he doesn't can be explained away by the fact he is all-powerful and can therefore hide his own existence. This doesn't really sit well with me. Even if I, myself, can't comprehend all the science that explains what we see up there, I'm comforted by the knowledge that it's collecting dust on a bookshelf or a click away on Wikipedia.

I find that the most puzzling thing about the scientific account of the origin of the universe is how can something come from nothing? Well, I don't fully understand it myself. There are, as always, theories but we really don't know squat before t=10^-33sec.

That doesn't mean that we won't know in the future but belief in God would only agitate rather than placate my quest for knowledge. Where did God come from? Religious people generally argue that God created the universe by using Paley's watchmaker analogy - a creation needs a creator - something cannot just come from nothing. However, like I said earlier, that doesn't explain how God himself originated and for something to exist eternally, with no apparent cause, is just baffling to me. Especially since the most ardent Creationists would argue that something of complexity like the universe has to have a creator - why is their God immune?

I rather like the Bible. Once you get past the occasionally hypocritical Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus Christ are generally inspiring and, of course, you should do your best to follow them. However, I don't particularly agree with worship or blind faith.

Disney Duster wrote:This is one of the things about you, I'm sorry to say, that I think is evil. Educating people, debating with them, is not evil in the slightest. But having a desire to crush and destroy the beliefs that keep people happy is.

What would your end result be? That everyone just accepts facts and no one's allowed to form their own beliefs otherwise? Everyone must conform to your will, like Hitler? That everyone in the future would have the kinds of happiness of physical and emotional things of life, but the ideas of God and spirituality, and being able to share that with others, would be dead, and they'd never be able to have the kind of happiness that only come from that, ever again? Never able to think of that again? And that would make you happy? That's what you want?

I don't want to convert people using force, but by persuasion. I don't want everyone to 'conform to my will', but I want to aim is for religion to not be taught to children (via making child indoctrination illegal) and discouraging it. I won't force anyone to become anti-religious in the same way today authorities cannot force someone who is sexist to develop more than two brain cells. I consider religion a virus - it's deadly, it negatively affects the body (specifically, the brain), it can spread rapidly, it's rather contagious, and it has many horrid symptoms (intolerance, childishness, etc.) I don't want to make people abandon their beliefs, I want to help them. It's likely that in centuries from now, religion will slowly fade away naturally.

Disney Duster wrote:I explained why it does not come from just the Bible and does not come just from me. If you're going to continue to think otherwise that's all you.

You either didn't explain properly or did it incoherently; also, my point wasn't just that you get your morals from other sources beside the Bible (even though it states explicity in the Bible that you should only get your ethics from it), but that you still don't seem to realise that a positive belief isn't necessarily the most likely or plausible belief.

Disney Duster wrote:And my point is it's not efficient evidence for you and other people who demand more, but at least its something.

A feeling of spirituality would not hold up in court. It would not hold up in scientific experiments. It wouldn't hold up in many debates, unless the majority of participants were deluded religious people. It's not evidence at all; evidence is a body of facts or proof to support a theory, belief and/or possibility. The feelings you have are simply desperate longings for a being that listens to you and watches over you all the time.

Disney Duster wrote:I actually could choose to believe in Santa, but it would be hard, I admit, and it would be choosing to believe in something that I know doesn't exist and I even know how he was made up and that people lie about him. But with God, in our infinite and mysterious universe there is not enough to say belief in a God alone or any spirituality for that matter is too unlikely. Anyway, I do actually feel I know God exists. And this was after I stopped believing for a while and really thought very deeply about the matter. One thing was I finally figured there was no reason I couldn't think he existed, so why choose not to?

I'm seriously considering giving up. You ignore my points. You repeat your arguments unthinkingly. You disregard facts. You disregard probability. You claim to understand that something positive isn't always something true, but always contradict this. And you believe that if you tried hard enough, you could make yourself believe in something that's not true, like Santa. Perhaps on the surface you can force yourself to believe something untrue or implausible, but deep, deep down, part of you will know that you're just lying to yourself.

As for your final quoted sentence - yes, there is no reason to show that God is not real, but in a similar way, there is no reason to show that the singing lobster is not real (he exists outside the universe, beyond where we can travel). Using Duster Logic, there is no reason I can't believe in the singing lobster, and if I considered it a 'positive' belief, I should believe in it. Sorry, but both the lobster and God hypotheses are highly, highly unlikely.

Disney Duster wrote:I'm sure you'll keep thinking your point stands but I say it doesn't because I do not regard the entire Bible as all of my beliefs or even use only the Bible for said beliefs.

Well...what's the point of the Bible then? If you believe that it's a positive, plausible and logical thing to have belief in God and get morals from other places besides Holy Books, what's the point of it? And how can you know that the parts of the Bible you like are God's word, and the parts you don't like aren't God's word? Because you 'feel' that it's right?

Disney Duster wrote:I already answered this kind of thing with Goliath before. It is in God's plan for people to pray to him, and for him to perhaps grant it. The only thing a prayer is supposed to change is the current situation you see or hope will/won't happen before your eyes, not to change God's plan.

So if a prayer can change the current situation and not affect God's seemingly flexible plan too much, then how you can excuse perfectly legitimate prayers from believers that are not answered? It seems you're contradicting yourself.

Disney Duster wrote:Yes. Well even some of the hard facts...you never know. Yes I know we can super duper duper sure but you never know. That's all I'm saying.

I suppose I get what you're saying.. I've often wondered about this very subject myself. But my ideas about this would be a completely separate topic altogether.

Disney Duster wrote:I would say that being taught just enough to live and be happy is what's most important to be taught first (and being happy and wanting to live can indeed include spirituality), then would come being taught spirituality which is about what would happen when/how to prepare for after you die, loving your creator, and giving additional happiness and not ignore this pivotal aspect of life, then would come learning the other things about your world which is really just education that continuously changes and is added to and you keep learning on and on as you grow.

I agree that spiritual/personal growth is just as important as mental growth (academics and common sense). I don't think it's necessary for anyone to begin forcing ideas about spirituality on children, however (especially specific ideas of a creator). It's almost like taking advantage of their impressionability, in my opinion. All of this comes in time, and most of people's ideas should come from their own growth and personal observations (which even you said yourself), instead of already having a basis in a certain belief after being taught it as a kid. The main difference between the two is that kids will believe anything and this is something they should come to terms with on their own.

Disney Duster wrote:Okay then. I get what you're saying.

Did this help you realize or conclude anything regarding what I said, then?

Disney Duster wrote:Well, yes you have to combine what I said with other things I said. It's all of it, believing in something hopeful, as afterall it hasn't been proven wrong, and there's also a book that is supposed to be sacred and contain the word of God and details of a religion that, so it was written down from back then, God told people about himself, and then what do you like and makes sense to you? And by the way it doesn't just make you feel better in having a place to go, it also can uplift you thinking you're more and beyond what only science says you are in it's strict cold physical terms.

Some of your arguments that you continually use aren't valid though. Just because it hasn't been disproven doesn't make it valid. A book that is "supposed" to be saved and contain true details (but still isn't proven in any way!) isn't valid.

Disney Duster wrote:Oh, I wanted to thank you for trying hard to see why I was saying about Jesus' word for that one quote. I am not sure but I think you're the first person I've debated this stuff with to really make me feel like you were trying to get me, and even though I'm not sure if you reached it, but maybe you did at least that one, I really thank you for trying. That's actually rather kind and, well, quite the opposite of heartless of you.

I constantly try to understand what you are saying.. normally I just don't agree with it.
I try to see the multiple sides of everything though.. no matter my initial assumptions.

Happy Easter, everyone!

yamiiguy wrote:God can never be proven to exist, by definition. We have no proof that he does exist and any proof that he doesn't can be explained away by the fact he is all-powerful and can therefore hide his own existence. This doesn't really sit well with me.

But when has there ever been proof he doesn't exist?

yamiiguy wrote:. Especially since the most ardent Creationists would argue that something of complexity like the universe has to have a creator - why is their God immune?

Exactly. This is how it is - if we know that anything material must come from something else material. But then we must think, what made that/ And the answer to that is some kind of power beyond the material, and physical. And that thing, if it's beyond all the physical material rules, would even be beyond the rules of something must come from something else. It is a power that could be eternal, to have always existed. It is spirituality. Something other than the material that only science can examine, and that it seems most people here, especially in this thread, think should be examined, ignoring all other possibilities.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I don't want to convert people using force, but by persuasion. I don't want everyone to 'conform to my will', but I want to aim is for religion to not be taught to children (via making child indoctrination illegal) and discouraging it. I won't force anyone to become anti-religious in the same way today authorities cannot force someone who is sexist to develop more than two brain cells. I consider religion a virus - it's deadly, it negatively affects the body (specifically, the brain), it can spread rapidly, it's rather contagious, and it has many horrid symptoms (intolerance, childishness, etc.) I don't want to make people abandon their beliefs, I want to help them. It's likely that in centuries from now, religion will slowly fade away naturally.

At first I thought you just meant to let people get educated by whatever information is out there, which I thought was okay, but I had thought more positively of you, now I see you really mean to keep people in classes that tell them why they shouldn't believe what they want to. WTF. Even people are allowed to be racist in their own minds, they just aren't allowed to act on it. For you to try to change people's minds like that is indeed very evil, like a dictactor, like Orwell's 1984.

You are purposely choosing to see no good side to religion. You are purposely choosing to ignore any happiness it gives people, and destroy it to fit your desires, even destroying it through what you call education. And I wonder why. I know why you don't like the things you see as bad, I just don't know why you also want to destroy the good. In even the things you like, such as Harry Potter, there is the discussion of a soul. One thing you enjoyed would be removed.

And there's nothing wrong with telling children about something and letting them choose to believe it or not. Telling them about such possibilities of things that could exist will actually at least expand their made and be able to let them consider more than just what they can physically see. Expanding the mind is a good thing. Forcing someone, know. Allowing them to by telling them about all possibilities, yes.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:my point wasn't just that you get your morals from other sources beside the Bible (even though it states explicity in the Bible that you should only get your ethics from it)

Where is that?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:A feeling of spirituality would not hold up in court. It would not hold up in scientific experiments. It wouldn't hold up in many debates, unless the majority of participants were deluded religious people. It's not evidence at all; evidence is a body of facts or proof to support a theory, belief and/or possibility. The feelings you have are simply desperate longings for a being that listens to you and watches over you all the time.

I know they're not, and also that you can't prove it either. But in a way, such longings are evidence as well. I'm actually not going to expand upon that one. That's all that's going to have to do. I don't care what you do with that one, now, you'll have to think on it and knowing you you probably won't arrive at what it means.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:You ignore my points. You repeat your arguments unthinkingly. You disregard facts. You disregard probability. You claim to understand that something positive isn't always something true, but always contradict this. And you believe that if you tried hard enough, you could make yourself believe in something that's not true, like Santa. Perhaps on the surface you can force yourself to believe something untrue or implausible, but deep, deep down, part of you will know that you're just lying to yourself.

I already stated I know God is more than possible, but true. But anyway, I also feel like what you said I'm doing to you, that you and many others are doing the same to me.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:As for your final quoted sentence - yes, there is no reason to show that God is not real, but in a similar way, there is no reason to show that the singing lobster is not real (he exists outside the universe, beyond where we can travel). Using Duster Logic, there is no reason I can't believe in the singing lobster, and if I considered it a 'positive' belief, I should believe in it. Sorry, but both the lobster and God hypotheses are highly, highly unlikely.

Don't give me that. I already explained why the lobster belief makes less sense and is less likely and, actually, it's less positive, too.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Well...what's the point of the Bible then? If you believe that it's a positive, plausible and logical thing to have belief in God and get morals from other places besides Holy Books, what's the point of it? And how can you know that the parts of the Bible you like are God's word, and the parts you don't like aren't God's word? Because you 'feel' that it's right?

You use what you feel is right in conjunction with the Bible. You read the Bible and if some of it doesn't feel right to you, so be it. And those who say the whole thing doesn't feel right, it's them being negative and unwilling to believe in any spiritual possibilities at all.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:So if a prayer can change the current situation and not affect God's seemingly flexible plan too much, then how you can excuse perfectly legitimate prayers from believers that are not answered? It seems you're contradicting yourself.

What? No, in God's plan he will have people pray hoping to change their situation and the situation may get changed according to his plan or it may not.

Disney Duster wrote:I agree that spiritual/personal growth is just as important as mental growth (academics and common sense). I don't think it's necessary for anyone to begin forcing ideas about spirituality on children, however (especially specific ideas of a creator). It's almost like taking advantage of their impressionability, in my opinion. All of this comes in time, and most of people's ideas should come from their own growth and personal observations (which even you said yourself), instead of already having a basis in a certain belief after being taught it as a kid. The main difference between the two is that kids will believe anything and this is something they should come to terms with on their own.

Well, this is because your someone who doesn't believe in any religion it seems? Spirituality is important to tell people no matter how young. And telling children about religious possibilities without making them go to church or anything else is just giving them information. That's not any different than a child finding the information on their own, later. How do children find out anything in the world. Most often they are told about it.

Heartless wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Okay then. I get what you're saying.

Did this help you realize or conclude anything regarding what I said, then?

If you mean has it deterred me from believing what I believe makes more sense than any other beliefs I've heard, no. But all you could ask of me is to get all that you meant in what you particularly told me.

Heartless wrote:Some of your arguments that you continually use aren't valid though. Just because it hasn't been disproven doesn't make it valid. A book that is "supposed" to be saved and contain true details (but still isn't proven in any way!) isn't valid.

It is valid. It's something. It's something that somehow is believed more than other things. It's not supposed to be the scientific courtroom kind of evidence Dr Frankenollie talked about.


This is from the survival instinct thread:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Because although we don't have proof, we still have probability; looking at the facts, the 'positive possible truth' of God existing is less probable than the 'negative possible truth' of God not existing.

Um...how? If it's too complicated, don't bother, I just don't agree.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:But what evidence can we use to consider the probability of God's existence if not physical? All your beliefs lie in feelings of spirituality - things that are highly questionable and extremely unscientific. Moreover, I could easily say that the lobster is more likely because your views on the singing lobster concept being 'silly' and 'funny' are because of what you're used to in this universe, and that your belief that lobsters can't sing is because of physical stimulus you have experienced.

Well spirituality can be felt, you feel it inside you, so that's why you can use your feelings. But also, spiritual things interacting with physical things can be evidence, like how you choose to move your hand, it is your brain moving it, but your spirit/soul make your brain do it, it chooses for your brain to do that at that time.

You have to use what you have, and if all I have is my spirit and my body and what I've experienced in this universe, it all tells me God is the more likely one than your lobster could be.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Out of curiousity Duster, could you tell us more about what brought you to your conclusion that God must exist? You said that you thought long and hard about it and briefly became depressed.

I think I can. It's that you realize that everything exists and it must come from something, and the highest and most sense-making, right feeling ideas are that of God. But you have to realize it on a different level then you are used to. You have to realize it in a way that existence itself is amazing. You have to realize it on the same level that you realize humans and their thoughts are signifigant, that they matter. After all, they are the highest things we know, too. You have to realize it in a way that anything science says doesn't debunk or matter very much to any of it, since science can only measure what is physical.

Disney Duster wrote:

Heartless wrote: Did this help you realize or conclude anything regarding what I said, then?

If you mean has it deterred me from believing what I believe makes more sense than any other beliefs I've heard, no. But all you could ask of me is to get all that you meant in what you particularly told me.

No, that isn't what I meant. My point in this debate is NOT to deter you in any way from your own beliefs.. I could honestly care less in whatever the hell you believe. I would like to help make people more open minded about ALL possibilities though.. I think that's something the world definitely needs.

When I asked if you realized anything.. I guess that's been answered in your last post, since you respond to yamiiguy with this:

Disney Duster wrote:

yamiiguy wrote:God can never be proven to exist, by definition. We have no proof that he does exist and any proof that he doesn't can be explained away by the fact he is all-powerful and can therefore hide his own existence. This doesn't really sit well with me.

But when has there ever been proof he doesn't exist?

I'm trying to get you to see that this argument is not a valid one! Can you not understand that this same answer could be given to ANYTHING? There is no proof that flying monkeys do not exist. Do you think that is a decent response if I am trying to persuade you they do exist?

(Don't even say "You just created these silly flying monkeys in order to rebut my argument.. its obviously made up and therefore untrue," because that isn't the point.)

So obviously you didn't learn anything. :sigh:
I'm about to give up with you. It's a waste of time. Just know that I find your closed-mindedness (not just about this topic, but in general) disgusting.

Disney Duster wrote:

Heartless wrote:Some of your arguments that you continually use aren't valid though. Just because it hasn't been disproven doesn't make it valid. A book that is "supposed" to be saved and contain true details (but still isn't proven in any way!) isn't valid.

It is valid. It's something. It's something that somehow is believed more than other things. It's not supposed to be the scientific courtroom kind of evidence Dr Frankenollie talked about.

This isn't what I'm talking about. See above.

Disney Duster wrote:At first I thought you just meant to let people get educated by whatever information is out there, which I thought was okay, but I had thought more positively of you, now I see you really mean to keep people in classes that tell them why they shouldn't believe what they want to. WTF. Even people are allowed to be racist in their own minds, they just aren't allowed to act on it. For you to try to change people's minds like that is indeed very evil, like a dictactor, like Orwell's 1984.

It's nothing like Orwell's 1984; in that, the Party tortured people to conform to their will. They forced them to worship Big Brother. As I said in my previous post here, I want to use persuasion, not force. I cannot stop people from thinking that there's a God, but I can try to dissuade them from having such dangerous delusions. From a young age, I want children to be taught that there is no substantial evidence for God, and that they can believe in him, but cannot indoctrinate others or use these beliefs as an excuse to commit crimes. They will be discourged and dissuaded from having religious beliefs, but not forcibly stopped.

Disney Duster wrote:You are purposely choosing to see no good side to religion. You are purposely choosing to ignore any happiness it gives people, and destroy it to fit your desires, even destroying it through what you call education. And I wonder why. I know why you don't like the things you see as bad, I just don't know why you also want to destroy the good. In even the things you like, such as Harry Potter, there is the discussion of a soul. One thing you enjoyed would be removed.

Firstly, I'm not saying concepts about souls et cetera can't exist in fiction; that's fine. And I know that there are some rather minor benefits to religion, although I believe the problems it has caused outweight the few benefits extremely so. Religion has helped with a few charities. But religion has also caused sexism, hatred/fear of scientific development, racism, homophobia, huge amounts of child indoctrination, torturing of innocents, war, inequalities in wealth, terrorism, and many other dreadful things. Religion caused the Crusades. A saint once had people who did not read the Bible tortured in Britain centuries ago. The Catholic Church did not oppose what Hitler did to Jews, blacks, the disabled and homosexuals in Nazi Germany, and earlier on in history, showed explicit support for the Slave Trade. I don't ignore the few benefits of religion, I just realise that they are outweighed by the hinderance religion has caused.

Disney Duster wrote:And there's nothing wrong with telling children about something and letting them choose to believe it or not. Telling them about such possibilities of things that could exist will actually at least expand their made and be able to let them consider more than just what they can physically see. Expanding the mind is a good thing. Forcing someone, know. Allowing them to by telling them about all possibilities, yes.

But believing in God is not expanding one's mind. It's closing it. If you believe that God made everything and God has always and will always exist, you don't question the physics of this, or the questions it raises. You just mindlessly, quite stupidly shrug your shoulders and accept the nonsense. Science opens people's minds much, much more. Science allows us to realise that we can't see everything around us - we only view a small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, when all sorts of waves and vibrations are travelling all around us. It widens our horizons, and it can make us think about the possibilities of extraterrestrials, parallel universes, black holes and all sorts of other fascinating theories.

Also - I think there is something wrong with telling children about something and letting them make their minds up for it completely. You wouldn't agree to that. "Hey kids, there are people of other races and sexualities, and you can treat them however you like!" "Hey kids, there was a guy called Hitler, and he killed lots of people - you can think whatever you like about him!" "Hey kids, some people believe in ethics, but you don't have to!" Children should be influenced at least a little. In fact, it's inevitable for them to be influenced by parents, teachers, the media, et al. They should be told to question everything and remain open-minded of course, but as an example, how could you discipline children if you let them make their minds up about anything and everything?

Disney Duster wrote:I know they're not, and also that you can't prove it either. But in a way, such longings are evidence as well. I'm actually not going to expand upon that one. That's all that's going to have to do. I don't care what you do with that one, now, you'll have to think on it and knowing you you probably won't arrive at what it means.

I probably wouldn't want to arrive at the mental state you're in.

Disney Duster wrote:Don't give me that. I already explained why the lobster belief makes less sense and is less likely and, actually, it's less positive, too.

Maybe you attempted to, but I disagree with what you're saying here. To some people, the idea of a singing lobster controlling the universe is nicer than a guy who sends people he dislikes to the burning pits of Hell and once flooded the Earth.

Disney Duster wrote:You use what you feel is right in conjunction with the Bible. You read the Bible and if some of it doesn't feel right to you, so be it. And those who say the whole thing doesn't feel right, it's them being negative and unwilling to believe in any spiritual possibilities at all.

But...you're doing the very definition of cherry-picking through the Bible! You are trying to mould your archaic beliefs into a modern worldview, and to do that you're throwing practically half of the Bible's books out because of longings you have for a God!

Disney Duster wrote:What? No, in God's plan he will have people pray hoping to change their situation and the situation may get changed according to his plan or it may not.

Please, read that back to yourself. God has a plan that can't be changed. People pray for him to change situations. God will only change those situations if the changes are part of his plan. Once again, WHAT'S THE POINT IN PRAYING THEN?

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Because although we don't have proof, we still have probability; looking at the facts, the 'positive possible truth' of God existing is less probable than the 'negative possible truth' of God not existing.

Um...how? If it's too complicated, don't bother, I just don't agree.

Haven't I been through this a billion times? If God exists, then to answer prayers, be immortal, indestructible, all-knowing, all-powerful, part of nature, outside of it, hear everyone's thoughts and create the universe, then he must be much more complex than the universe itself. And as there is no evidence for his existence, his existence is therefore extremely improbable.

Disney Duster wrote:Well spirituality can be felt, you feel it inside you, so that's why you can use your feelings. But also, spiritual things interacting with physical things can be evidence, like how you choose to move your hand, it is your brain moving it, but your spirit/soul make your brain do it, it chooses for your brain to do that at that time.

I don't think my 'soul' tells my brain what to do; I think external influences, evolution and genetics influence what my brain does. There's absolutely no evidence for souls existing.

Heartless, what on Earth would my close-mindedness be? That the idea of God makes the most sense to me and therefore I think it's right? That's all I can think of for what you mean, and it's not disgusting.

Dr. Frankenollie, first, whether there's evidence for God is really up to people to decide. People could say the Bible is, people could say existence is. Saying that it's not because the Bible could have not been written by God or that existence didn't ceom from God is just mentioning a possibility, one that people can arrive on their own. Basically you're talking about possibilities, that there is a God or there isn't, and you must let people choose which one they believe.

When you say religion has few and small good things, I don't think you realize the importance and power of, if he exists, believing in the thing that made and intended everything in existence, and will reward everyone's lives with a meaningful happy afterlife if they do. That is no small comfort! You might as well say what is the point of anything happy? Well, it makes you happy, it helps you enjoy life, and if you think it will extend to an afterlife, that's even more powerful. To try and rid, even by persuasion, the belief in that such happy thoughts from people's minds, is a truly evil intention.

As for religion causing bad things, once more, it is the people that do what they do with it, not the religion itself. You are not divorcing individual people's beliefs in God or things in some religions from the religions themselves and what past people did with them. You're actually being really obviously unfair by generalizing and saying because some bad things have happened with something that anything related to it you want to destroy. It's pretty bad man and you should be realizing that.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:But believing in God is not expanding one's mind. It's closing it. If you believe that God made everything and God has always and will always exist, you don't question the physics of this, or the questions it raises. You just mindlessly, quite stupidly shrug your shoulders and accept the nonsense. Science opens people's minds much, much more. Science allows us to realise that we can't see everything around us - we only view a small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, when all sorts of waves and vibrations are travelling all around us. It widens our horizons, and it can make us think about the possibilities of extraterrestrials, parallel universes, black holes and all sorts of other fascinating theories.

On the contrary, to be able to consider God along with also considering all the things you already mentioned is a truly complex and expanded mind. And in comparison like you say science expands the mind to know there is more than what we see physically in front of us, so do beliefs in things other than the physical and material, beliefs in the spiritual and simply more than what science can prove and its "rules". It's belief in more. Anything that's more is expanding the mind.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Also - I think there is something wrong with telling children about something and letting them make their minds up for it completely. You wouldn't agree to that. "Hey kids, there are people of other races and sexualities, and you can treat them however you like!" "Hey kids, there was a guy called Hitler, and he killed lots of people - you can think whatever you like about him!" "Hey kids, some people believe in ethics, but you don't have to!" Children should be influenced at least a little. In fact, it's inevitable for them to be influenced by parents, teachers, the media, et al. They should be told to question everything and remain open-minded of course, but as an example, how could you discipline children if you let them make their minds up about anything and everything?

People should be allowed to think what they want about whatever. You do hope to guide them to what is good though, there's nothing wrong with saying things to people in hopes they will think what you think is good for them to think. And the idea of the possibility of a God, souls, and a happy afterlife for all are in themselves good, at the very least.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I probably wouldn't want to arrive at the mental state you're in.

I must say the same to you... : (

Disney Duster wrote:Don't give me that. I already explained why the lobster belief makes less sense and is less likely and, actually, it's less positive, too.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:To some people, the idea of a singing lobster controlling the universe is nicer than a guy who sends people he dislikes to the burning pits of Hell and once flooded the Earth.

Yes but you do not have to believe in those particular things about God. You aren't looking at just the positive ideas of God, when people can just believe those. Of course, people usually do like believing in justice, and if even you want some people punished for doing wrong things surely you can understand God doing the same.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:But...you're doing the very definition of cherry-picking through the Bible! You are trying to mould your archaic beliefs into a modern worldview, and to do that you're throwing practically half of the Bible's books out because of longings you have for a God!

I disagree. I feel very much that my heart, soul, and brain that God gave me are figuring out what God and the Bible really mean. Since the Bible was changed and I can't exactly be sure what in it is the word of God, as Super Aurora even said.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:What? No, in God's plan he will have people pray hoping to change their situation and the situation may get changed according to his plan or it may not.

Please, read that back to yourself. God has a plan that can't be changed. People pray for him to change situations. God will only change those situations if the changes are part of his plan. Once again, WHAT'S THE POINT IN PRAYING THEN?

Well, God would only give people the changes if they prayed for it. Praying is part of the plan but it still needs to actually happen as everything else does in the plan.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Because although we don't have proof, we still have probability; looking at the facts, the 'positive possible truth' of God existing is less probable than the 'negative possible truth' of God not existing.

Um...how? If it's too complicated, don't bother, I just don't agree.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Haven't I been through this a billion times? If God exists, then to answer prayers, be immortal, indestructible, all-knowing, all-powerful, part of nature, outside of it, hear everyone's thoughts and create the universe, then he must be much more complex than the universe itself. And as there is no evidence for his existence, his existence is therefore extremely improbable.

But God is probable in our wondering what could make anything exist. Yes we understand evolution but not how something can come from nothing, or moreso, how anything exists at all, that's where some of the probability for God comes from. See? Maybe you'll get me now? ! : ) And yes God is more complex than the universe, something that doesn't follow the kind of rules you see in physical things. But the mere fact that our minds can quite amazingly even think of such a thing to me is more evidence that there is more than the physical and God is a possibility.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I don't think my 'soul' tells my brain what to do; I think external influences, evolution and genetics influence what my brain does. There's absolutely no evidence for souls existing.

So you think there's no...self in you aside from genes given to you by your parents and influences from things other than your self? Actually I might make you pretty depressed if we go any farther, I hope I don't have to say anymore than this. You believe you make choices don't you, that are of your own accord? A will? A soul.

Disney Duster wrote:Dr. Frankenollie, first, whether there's evidence for God is really up to people to decide. People could say the Bible is, people could say existence is. Saying that it's not because the Bible could have not been written by God or that existence didn't ceom from God is just mentioning a possibility, one that people can arrive on their own. Basically you're talking about possibilities, that there is a God or there isn't, and you must let people choose which one they believe.

They're not just possibilities - they demonstrate that the things you uphold as evidence for God aren't really evidence. Like I said, the Bible's stories could have easily been made up, like the myths and legends of ancient civilisations. Moreover, the Bible and other things you consider evidence of God's existence, such as the feelings of it being 'right' and a yearning for it, aren't really forms of evidence at all, but forms of faith. In fact, faith is believing in something despite a lack of evidence. What can be considered reliable evidence is not up for people to choose; something is reliable or it isn't. A scientist who conducts a scientific experiment with uncalibrated equipment and who doesn't keep the variables of the experiment the same cannot say that his results are reliable; likewise, a scientist whose results lack anomalies and who had a single independent variable can't be accused of having unreliable results without reason.

Evidence most certainly cannot be something which can be attributed to many other, much more probable things. For example, if somebody tried to prove a murder took place with blurry security camera footage that could be regarded as showing banter, hugging or nothing remotely resembling murder is not reliable evidence. Similarly, saying that the Bible and/or existence are evidence for God is incorrect, because they can be attributed to many other causes.

Disney Duster wrote:When you say religion has few and small good things, I don't think you realize the importance and power of, if he exists, believing in the thing that made and intended everything in existence, and will reward everyone's lives with a meaningful happy afterlife if they do. That is no small comfort! You might as well say what is the point of anything happy? Well, it makes you happy, it helps you enjoy life, and if you think it will extend to an afterlife, that's even more powerful. To try and rid, even by persuasion, the belief in that such happy thoughts from people's minds, is a truly evil intention.

To quote the brilliant signature of Heartless: "Good and evil are man-made ideas. Nature does not have such concepts." I believe that we developed the moral zeitgeist and morality as justification for what we do and a way to control the masses; there are no true, definitive ethics. One man's good is another man's evil, and vice versa. My intention to rid delusions from people's minds may be seen as an evil intention by you, but I personally see it as a good intention. Furthermore, the concepts associated with God are frightening and do not make somebody enjoy life, such as fear of eternal damnation, Satan and Hell. Religion does not make somebody appreciate life, because if somebody is religious they will probably have belief in eternal life through the soul! Real, true things provide just as much (if not more) pleasure and happiness in the lives of individuals, such as the wonders of science and nature. Finally, something making people feel happy does not make it anymore true. Santa Claus may make many children happy, but that doesn't make him exist.

Disney Duster wrote:As for religion causing bad things, once more, it is the people that do what they do with it, not the religion itself. You are not divorcing individual people's beliefs in God or things in some religions from the religions themselves and what past people did with them. You're actually being really obviously unfair by generalizing and saying because some bad things have happened with something that anything related to it you want to destroy. It's pretty bad man and you should be realizing that.

How can it not be the religion itself, when the Bible and many other filthy, disgusting Holy Books command believers to convert others, to stone those who work on the Sabbath, to oppress women and execute homosexuals?! Yes, in general most believers in the Western world no longer follow these instructions, but all past horrors and problems I've mentioned when criticising belief were caused by religion, not just the believers in question. Who can blame believers for taking the Bible seriously when they're brainwashed into thinking that it is the word of God?! Yes, religion has also inspired great art and music, but they do not make the millions of lives destroyed by the concept of God acceptable.

Disney Duster wrote:On the contrary, to be able to consider God along with also considering all the things you already mentioned is a truly complex and expanded mind. And in comparison like you say science expands the mind to know there is more than what we see physically in front of us, so do beliefs in things other than the physical and material, beliefs in the spiritual and simply more than what science can prove and its "rules". It's belief in more. Anything that's more is expanding the mind.

To believe that one supernatural magician who somehow has always existed decided to design and make a gigantic universe on a whim does not show you have a complex and expanded mind, but a simple and gullible one. Believing in God, the Devil, angels, ghosts and other assorted boogeyman does not demonstrate RATIONAL open-mindedness, but superstition.

Disney Duster wrote:People should be allowed to think what they want about whatever. You do hope to guide them to what is good though, there's nothing wrong with saying things to people in hopes they will think what you think is good for them to think. And the idea of the possibility of a God, souls, and a happy afterlife for all are in themselves good, at the very least.

You want and hope for everyone to follow your mythological sky-god; you may think that everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions on what to believe, but you would prefer it if everyone agreed with you. I shall be honest - I don't think that people should necessarily think what they want about anything. But...'should' is such a stupid word, isn't it? Neither side is truly more just or ethical than the other, because justice and ethics also happen to be belief systems. Also, your ideal world would be one of lawlessness and anarchy. If anyone is allowed to have their own ideas about right and wrong, then why should psychopaths be put in asylums? Shouldn't they, in your view, have the right to think they should murder people and do so?

Disney Duster wrote:Yes but you do not have to believe in those particular things about God. You aren't looking at just the positive ideas of God, when people can just believe those. Of course, people usually do like believing in justice, and if even you want some people punished for doing wrong things surely you can understand God doing the same.

I can't choose my beliefs. They come freely of my own decision. I could claim that I believe in God, but deep down I would know that I didn't.

Disney Duster wrote:I disagree. I feel very much that my heart, soul, and brain that God gave me are figuring out what God and the Bible really mean. Since the Bible was changed and I can't exactly be sure what in it is the word of God, as Super Aurora even said.

But you cannot figure out on your own what 'God' is telling you, right? What would make you so special? Why would you succeed in solving the mysteries of the universe and others wouldn't? How can you rely on your own heart and brain? The only thing that a Christian can rely upon to help them understand God is his alleged word, through the Bible, which you have demonstrated you cherry-pick from, rather than following it properly like 'Jesus' would want you to.

Disney Duster wrote:Please, read that back to yourself. God has a plan that can't be changed. People pray for him to change situations. God will only change those situations if the changes are part of his plan. Once again, WHAT'S THE POINT IN PRAYING THEN?

Well, God would only give people the changes if they prayed for it. Praying is part of the plan but it still needs to actually happen as everything else does in the plan.[/quote]

If the 'changes' are part of the plan, they're not really changes, are they? And if God has planned for you to pray and you do, it's not really out of free will; God influenced it to happen and intended on indirectly making you do so. It's intefering with a person's choice.

Disney Duster wrote:But God is probable in our wondering what could make anything exist. Yes we understand evolution but not how something can come from nothing, or moreso, how anything exists at all, that's where some of the probability for God comes from. See? Maybe you'll get me now? ! : ) And yes God is more complex than the universe, something that doesn't follow the kind of rules you see in physical things. But the mere fact that our minds can quite amazingly even think of such a thing to me is more evidence that there is more than the physical and God is a possibility.

After reading this several times, I finally, kind-of saw what you were getting at. So - just because we don't know how something can come from nothing does not make God any more probable. (Where did God come from then?) It isn't a solution at all.

Disney Duster wrote:So you think there's no...self in you aside from genes given to you by your parents and influences from things other than your self? Actually I might make you pretty depressed if we go any farther, I hope I don't have to say anymore than this. You believe you make choices don't you, that are of your own accord? A will? A soul.

No, I don't think there's anything else. Evolved brain, genes, external influences. Those are the factors that make me who I am. My 'will' is caused by those things; if you want to class that as a 'soul', then do so. I thought souls continued to exist beyond the grave, and my 'will' won't.

Thinking can undermine religious faith, study finds
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la- ... 4010.story

I seriously 'd at that headline.

ajmrowland wrote:I seriously 'd at that headline.

I thought it was funny, too, tbh.