1) Of course it doesn't. but it neither means that there is a God. Many religous people take our mere existance as a proof God exists, and that's wrong.

Not really. As far as the big picture goes, belief or disbelief doesn't matter. You can live your life just as well with those beliefs as you can without, it's only when people think that the other beliefs shouldn't exist that the problems come up.

Let's be honest here, as much as I love evolution I could live my life fine without knowing it. Knowing it just alleviates a bit of curiosity. And with creationism you have a very simple belief that you don't have to put hours of study into, therefore giving you more time to actually live your life.

 

2) You didn't get my point here. You're right about what you said, but that only further proves the blindness of religion.

Religion will do anything to prove itself correct even if (hypotheticaly) someone found a solid proof that God couldn't possibly exist. That's also wrong.

That's more on the human end of it though. People in general hate being wrong.

 

3) I never said I take the big bang as guranteed. I only used it as an example.

Whether it be scientists or anyone religous, mankind can't accept not knowing something. Scientists may be wrong, but their advantages are that: A. If something is proved wrong no one will try to cover up for it (unless, of course, the disprovement itself is wrong), and B. Scientists don't just throw theories in the air, they always back them up somehow, unlike religion, which just says it's there.

That's too idealistic. Too black and white.

If a scientist made his name on a theory that was later disproved, I doubt he would just lie down quietly and admit it, especially if that's where his livelihood comes from. He will try to find errors in the other idea.

Science's defining point is that it isn't static. That's the best part of it, but could also lead to problems in the long term. Religion's defining point is what it says about morality and belief. Honestly, the only ones that care deeply about what religions say about the origin of humans are atheists who are using that to disprove the concept. The bits about humanity's origins are little better than filler.

Yeah, um...Joe...you're making WAAAAYYYYY too big of a deal out of Romy's signature. Like seriously, way too big.

This. I mean, a mesage in a signature isn't necessarily true. For example, by the time you read this, my signature will say that I am an eskimo from Mercury.

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

Sounds like every other kid who's read a couple online articles and espoused the exact same words. People make better "arguments" on here."

God knows, knew, and will know what we do, he sees time from a different perspective as us. He may know what we do, but it doesn't mean he decided that's what we'll do, we picked it, he saw it..

How do you know he sees time from a different perspective?

Even if that wasn't true, FSM is not a replacement to religion, I doubt anyone really takes it that way.

I'm a Pastafarianist - I belong to the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. R'amen.

Do I smell irony?

 

He probably thinks he's being funny.

Sounds like every other kid who's read a couple online articles and espoused the exact same words. People make better "arguments" on here."

God knows, knew, and will know what we do, he sees time from a different perspective as us. He may know what we do, but it doesn't mean he decided that's what we'll do, we picked it, he saw it..

How do you know he sees time from a different perspective?

Probably the nature of being a God. If you know everything that has happened and will happen, you're immortal, and you have power over everything, time wouldn't really be an issue.

Sounds like every other kid who's read a couple online articles and espoused the exact same words. People make better "arguments" on here."

God knows, knew, and will know what we do, he sees time from a different perspective as us. He may know what we do, but it doesn't mean he decided that's what we'll do, we picked it, he saw it..

How do you know he sees time from a different perspective?

Probably the nature of being a God. If you know everything that has happened and will happen, you're immortal, and you have power over everything, time wouldn't really be an issue.

Bingo. Wow a local guy, you're really on top of theological stuff in everything you say.

 

And yes. Time is irrelevant to God because when you are infinite and always present, you're existent in the future before it even occurs as well as in the past after it has happened, while still maintaining a presence in the current.

I have no idea how such a thing could exist.

1) Of course it doesn't. but it neither means that there is a God. Many religous people take our mere existance as a proof God exists, and that's wrong.

Not really. As far as the big picture goes, belief or disbelief doesn't matter. You can live your life just as well with those beliefs as you can without, it's only when people think that the other beliefs shouldn't exist that the problems come up.

Let's be honest here, as much as I love evolution I could live my life fine without knowing it. Knowing it just alleviates a bit of curiosity. And with creationism you have a very simple belief that you don't have to put hours of study into, therefore giving you more time to actually live your life.

 

2) You didn't get my point here. You're right about what you said, but that only further proves the blindness of religion.

Religion will do anything to prove itself correct even if (hypotheticaly) someone found a solid proof that God couldn't possibly exist. That's also wrong.

That's more on the human end of it though. People in general hate being wrong.

 

3) I never said I take the big bang as guranteed. I only used it as an example.

Whether it be scientists or anyone religous, mankind can't accept not knowing something. Scientists may be wrong, but their advantages are that: A. If something is proved wrong no one will try to cover up for it (unless, of course, the disprovement itself is wrong), and B. Scientists don't just throw theories in the air, they always back them up somehow, unlike religion, which just says it's there.

That's too idealistic. Too black and white.

If a scientist made his name on a theory that was later disproved, I doubt he would just lie down quietly and admit it, especially if that's where his livelihood comes from. He will try to find errors in the other idea.

Science's defining point is that it isn't static. That's the best part of it, but could also lead to problems in the long term. Religion's defining point is what it says about morality and belief. Honestly, the only ones that care deeply about what religions say about the origin of humans are atheists who are using that to disprove the concept. The bits about humanity's origins are little better than filler.

 

1) In here I did not comment on religion in General, only to a specific problem I see. Taking something that isn't directly or logicaly related, and treat it as proof, is wrong.

Some people take our existence as a *proof*, as in, we exist and thus can conclude that there is a God. They take it as a proof, and that's wrong.

 

2) No, religion is more fanatic about it. When someone's wrong, and is proven to be wrong, eventually he will admit it, he has no other choice. Religion on the other hand isn't like that, even if it's proven wrong, people will dismiss it.

 

3) True, they scientist would probably do everything he possibly could to prove the other one wrong, but he can't just say "no you're wrong" (like religion does), he'd work hard, and if he's really wrong, will never be able to prove otherwise.

Also " Honestly, the only ones that care deeply about what religions say about the origin of humans are atheists who are using that to disprove the concept." I don't see it as wrong. That's the base of the 3 main religions, and many others aswell. If the base is wrong, the rest surely is aswell.

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

 

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned.

 

 

As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier.

That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

1) In here I did not comment on religion in General, only to a specific problem I see. Taking something that isn't directly or logicaly related, and treat it as proof, is wrong.

Some people take our existence as a *proof*, as in, we exist and thus can conclude that there is a God. They take it as a proof, and that's wrong.

 

2) No, religion is more fanatic about it. When someone's wrong, and is proven to be wrong, eventually he will admit it, he has no other choice. Religion on the other hand isn't like that, even if it's proven wrong, people will dismiss it.

 

3) True, they scientist would probably do everything he possibly could to prove the other one wrong, but he can't just say "no you're wrong" (like religion does), he'd work hard, and if he's really wrong, will never be able to prove otherwise.

Also " Honestly, the only ones that care deeply about what religions say about the origin of humans are atheists who are using that to disprove the concept." I don't see it as wrong. That's the base of the 3 main religions, and many others aswell. If the base is wrong, the rest surely is aswell.

Going to try it this way, might be easier

1) I'm just saying that in the long term it doesn't matter. Why are beliefs you see as "wrong" such a problem?

2) Ideally, you mean. It depends on the person.

3) Creationism isn't the base, the actual belief set is. The creation stories in the religions really just say "This is what happened in the past, now here's the part you're all reading it for". Then you get to the important part, the moral guidelines.

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

 

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned.

 

 

As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier.

That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

 

I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way.

1) In here I did not comment on religion in General, only to a specific problem I see. Taking something that isn't directly or logicaly related, and treat it as proof, is wrong.

Some people take our existence as a *proof*, as in, we exist and thus can conclude that there is a God. They take it as a proof, and that's wrong.

 

2) No, religion is more fanatic about it. When someone's wrong, and is proven to be wrong, eventually he will admit it, he has no other choice. Religion on the other hand isn't like that, even if it's proven wrong, people will dismiss it.

 

3) True, they scientist would probably do everything he possibly could to prove the other one wrong, but he can't just say "no you're wrong" (like religion does), he'd work hard, and if he's really wrong, will never be able to prove otherwise.

Also " Honestly, the only ones that care deeply about what religions say about the origin of humans are atheists who are using that to disprove the concept." I don't see it as wrong. That's the base of the 3 main religions, and many others aswell. If the base is wrong, the rest surely is aswell.

Going to try it this way, might be easier

1) I'm just saying that in the long term it doesn't matter. Why are beliefs you see as "wrong" such a problem?

2) Ideally, you mean. It depends on the person.

3) Creationism isn't the base, the actual belief set is. The creation stories in the religions really just say "This is what happened in the past, now here's the part you're all reading it for". Then you get to the important part, the moral guidelines.

 

1) Because I see them as wrong for a reason. Not because I decided it's just wrong. Also, as I've already mentioned, in here I'm not discussing belief in general, only that bit.

2) No. Take religion as a compay. It's main goal against science is not to be proven wrong and will do anything to accomplish that, including to dismiss FACTS.

3) Perhaps not *the* base, but definitely *a* base. If God didn't create me, there's not much reason for me to follow him.

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

 

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned.

 

 

As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier.

That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

 

I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way.

 

 

No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact.

That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are.

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

 

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned.

 

 

As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier.

That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

 

I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way.

 

 

No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact.

That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are.

 

I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact.

I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part.

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

 

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned.

 

 

As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier.

That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

 

I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way.

 

 

No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact.

That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are.

 

I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact.

I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part.

 

No, it doesn't matter, because I wasn't referring to it. I didn't mean it doesn't matter in general, only that it doesn't within our discussion.

 

You can call my fact BS all you want, but research has been made, and happiness was "measured" by the person itself. For instance, if you asked me if in general I'm a happy person, I'd say yes. It doesn't matter if my happiness doesn't compare to another's.

 

 

Religous people are happier.

But, again, that isn't necessarily a good thing, just beacuse a drunk man could be happier than a sober one.

1) Because I see them as wrong for a reason. Not because I decided it's just wrong. Also, as I've already mentioned, in here I'm not discussing belief in general, only that bit.

2) No. Take religion as a compay. It's main goal against science is not to be proven wrong and will do anything to accomplish that, including to dismiss FACTS.

3) Perhaps not *the* base, but definitely *a* base. If God didn't create me, there's not much reason for me to follow him.

1) Even with a reason it's still a lot of effort wasted on someone else's beliefs.

2) While to it the entire premise of science is to use "facts" to weaken it. It works both ways. And that's a problem, members of both sides are too busy trying to prove each other wrong to actually accomplish anything meaningful.

3) However, following the religion as a moral guideline is the point. The existence of a God is just used to reinforce that. Same with the rewards and punishments of an afterlife. Because, to be honest, the immoral side is a lot more attractive. That's probably part of the reason parents offer longer term punishments and rewards when raising their kids (Behavioral psychology <3: ).

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

 

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned.

 

 

As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier.

That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

 

I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way.

 

 

No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact.

That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are.

 

I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact.

I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part.

 

No, it doesn't matter, because I wasn't referring to it. I didn't mean it doesn't matter in general, only that it doesn't within our discussion.

 

You can call my fact BS all you want, but research has been made, and happiness was "measured" by the person itself. For instance, if you asked me if in general I'm a happy person, I'd say yes. It doesn't matter if my happiness doesn't compare to another's.

 

 

Religous people are happier.

But, again, that isn't necessarily a good thing, just beacuse a drunk man could be happier than a sober one.

 

Again, your fact is based on something subjective. It's not really a fact. Happiness is something that can easily change between now and a minute later, and people have difference feelings as to what happiness is. Saying religious people are happier means absolutely nothing.

1) Because I see them as wrong for a reason. Not because I decided it's just wrong. Also, as I've already mentioned, in here I'm not discussing belief in general, only that bit.

2) No. Take religion as a compay. It's main goal against science is not to be proven wrong and will do anything to accomplish that, including to dismiss FACTS.

3) Perhaps not *the* base, but definitely *a* base. If God didn't create me, there's not much reason for me to follow him.

1) Even with a reason it's still a lot of effort wasted on someone else's beliefs.

2) While to it the entire premise of science is to use "facts" to weaken it. It works both ways. And that's a problem, members of both sides are too busy trying to prove each other wrong to actually accomplish anything meaningful.

3) However, following the religion as a moral guideline is the point. The existence of a God is just used to reinforce that. Same with the rewards and punishments of an afterlife. Because, to be honest, the immoral side is a lot more attractive. That's probably part of the reason parents offer longer term punishments and rewards when raising their kids (Behavioral psychology <3: ).

 

1) Effort? You mean like...typing? ....

2) The enite premise of science? Have you got any idea how many scientists are whole-heartly religous?

The fact is, that religon will dismiss facts on the account that they collide with their beliefs. I'm kind of repeating myself here, but ignoring facts to your comfort is wrong. I know religion is not the first to do it and neither the only one, but as such a popular phenonmenon, I'd expect it to follow the logic behind facts.

3) Really? And you think religion would be that popular if it was based only on moral guidelines? Or exist at all thus far?

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

 

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned.

 

 

As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier.

That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

 

I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way.

 

 

No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact.

That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are.

 

I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact.

I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part.

 

No, it doesn't matter, because I wasn't referring to it. I didn't mean it doesn't matter in general, only that it doesn't within our discussion.

 

You can call my fact BS all you want, but research has been made, and happiness was "measured" by the person itself. For instance, if you asked me if in general I'm a happy person, I'd say yes. It doesn't matter if my happiness doesn't compare to another's.

 

 

Religous people are happier.

But, again, that isn't necessarily a good thing, just beacuse a drunk man could be happier than a sober one.

 

Again, your fact is based on something subjective. It's not really a fact. Happiness is something that can easily change between now and a minute later, and people have difference feelings as to what happiness is. Saying religious people are happier means absolutely nothing.

 

Subjective or not, when someone says they're happy (as long as they're not lying), it's because they're happy.

 

 

As for it meaning nothing... Read up the quote. The first guy said he finds the bible a book of joy, and is why I stated religous people are happier.

3) Really? And you think religion would be that popular if it was based only on moral guidelines? Or exist at all thus far?

No, he seems to be saying the opposite; religion is popular because of the idea of afterlife and a god, those are the tools used to enforce the moral guidelines. Although I think some far eastern religions (maybe even Buddhism?) are pretty much just moral guidelines to live by and don't promise an afterlife or any rewards.

Science has shown that the human brain causes a person to have beliefs, and that their experiences shape their beliefs. So if you were brought up religious and you allowed yourself to belief it and did fully believe in it, your belief would be in the existence of an omnipotent force such as God, Allah etc.

 

However who has suggested that God is infinite and all powerful? A person did. Their belief did. A force as powerful as God, must be infinite, as God would have created the universe, the galaxies, the planets, animals etc. Their is no proof however, and all we have are BELIEFS that a God knows the future, however that would assume there was fate, which brings a problem with some people who do not believe in fate, unless they were willing to sacrifice their belief in the non existence of fate in favour of God knowing the future and therefore fate of everything. But then they have lost a belief, shaped from their experience, so how binding is such experience to a person? In this paradoxical and theoretical example, either argument contains flaws, and that is due to the founding of belief. God has no proof, so everything about God, is therefore an assumption of belief, such as that God created the universe, that God is the almighty force etc etc.

 

Such a being is essentially impossible, as it would clearly be visible, unless it was both infinite and nothing at the same time. Humans have been shown to have the want to believe in a higher power than themselves, which is where beliefs about the power of God come from. If something is both infinite and nothing, it cancels itself out and therefore it is nothing.

 

Unless you consider God to be an almighty FORCE which would be different, and under similar ideas to "mother nature" "calypso" etc. As it is infinite space and time are therefore irrelevant, as it can be anywhere at any given point, which would suggest that God exists as a dimension above that of time and space, and that can freely move between all dimensions. Being infinite would therefore grant it the ability to affect blackholes, or not be affected by them, as it can be inside or out of one due to the infiniteness of power.

 

I personally do not believe in the existence of a high power, and clearly i like to scrutinise, but i have nothing against those who do believe in a God or Gods.

1) Effort? You mean like...typing? ....

2) The enite premise of science? Have you got any idea how many scientists are whole-heartly religous?

The fact is, that religon will dismiss facts on the account that they collide with their beliefs. I'm kind of repeating myself here, but ignoring facts to your comfort is wrong. I know religion is not the first to do it and neither the only one, but as such a popular phenonmenon, I'd expect it to follow the logic behind facts.

3) Really? And you think religion would be that popular if it was based only on moral guidelines? Or exist at all thus far?

1) Yes, pretty much.

2) No idea how many. It really doesn't matter though. Science and religion are two wholly different things.

I just have to ask, why is "ignoring facts to your comfort" wrong? Why is it so important that others believe the same things as you?

3) See Lenin's post. He said it better than I could have.

3) Really? And you think religion would be that popular if it was based only on moral guidelines? Or exist at all thus far?

No, he seems to be saying the opposite; religion is popular because of the idea of afterlife and a god, those are the tools used to enforce the moral guidelines. Although I think some far eastern religions (maybe even Buddhism?) are pretty much just moral guidelines to live by and don't promise an afterlife or any rewards.

Nah, pretty much all religions provide an afterlife of sorts. Buddhism has so many variations on the idea it's hard to say whether they believe in an afterlife or not. You escape the cycle of reincarnation and achieve enlightenment, at which point... well, all pain and suffering end, though I'm not really sure what that entails. I guess that could be considered a religion with no afterlife, though the cycle of reincarnation is so ridiculously long that it might as well be.

 

 

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

 

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned.

 

 

As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier.

That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

 

I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way.

 

 

No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact.

That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are.

 

I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact.

I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part.

 

No, it doesn't matter, because I wasn't referring to it. I didn't mean it doesn't matter in general, only that it doesn't within our discussion.

 

You can call my fact BS all you want, but research has been made, and happiness was "measured" by the person itself. For instance, if you asked me if in general I'm a happy person, I'd say yes. It doesn't matter if my happiness doesn't compare to another's.

 

 

Religous people are happier.

But, again, that isn't necessarily a good thing, just beacuse a drunk man could be happier than a sober one.

 

Again, your fact is based on something subjective. It's not really a fact. Happiness is something that can easily change between now and a minute later, and people have difference feelings as to what happiness is. Saying religious people are happier means absolutely nothing.

 

 

Subjective or not, when someone says they're happy (as long as they're not lying), it's because they're happy.

 

 

As for it meaning nothing... Read up the quote. The first guy said he finds the bible a book of joy, and is why I stated religous people are happier.

 

Subjective or not is does matter, because going by what you're saying, it's impossible to be a fact. A fact would be something supported by data, and what you're saying is not something that can be accurately measured. Instead, you're speaking of something that is not a science and calling it fact. As for it meaning nothing, I meant your "fact" is complete BS.