Zz can we stop beating this poor horse already? God exists, God doesn't exist, what the [bleep] does it really matter either way? Let's all just ignore it like we do everything else that bugs us.

I'd say it's pretty likely that religious people are happier. Hell, if I thought I'd get to live in a castle in the clouds after I kick the bucket I would certainly be a lot less depressed and stressed out.

 

 

Edit: That seems super douchey. Interpret it as you will.

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?

 

Science religion are not two separate things. Whether a god exists is a scientific question, and while that answer may not be determinable right now, the probability can certainly be calculated. The reason they are seperate now is because no evidence exists that supports religion. Do you think if evidence came about that supported creationism or another aspect of the bible people would discredit it because it's scientific? Hell, give me evidence of creationism (more so than that of evolution) and that's what I'll believe in. It's people who continue to believe in something on the lack of evidence that turn me off. Who cares if it's helpful to one's life, if it's flat out false there's no reason we should teach it.

I'd say it's pretty likely that religious people are happier. Hell, if I thought I'd get to live in a castle in the clouds after I kick the bucket I would certainly be a lot less depressed and stressed out.

 

 

Edit: That seems super douchey. Interpret it as you will.

 

I prefer nothing happening after death over living an eternity of servitude.

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.

 

1) Nothing to say here but "Lol"...

2) Why is ignoring facts to your comfort wrong? Are you seriously asking this?

If you really are, I'll answer with an example- Let's say you ignore gravity. I'm sure it would be much more comfortable not to feel yourself so restricted to the ground. You would almost certainly die because of it though.

3) After-life, creationism, basically the same thing in our discussion. People believe in God because of that, and not because the guidelines are so pure and just (that's not saying they're not, that's saying that that's not the reason).

 

 

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.

 

 

It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P?

 

 

And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are.

 

 

 

Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that.

1) Nothing to say here but "Lol"...

2) Why is ignoring facts to your comfort wrong? Are you seriously asking this?

If you really are, I'll answer with an example- Let's say you ignore gravity. I'm sure it would be much more comfortable not to feel yourself so restricted to the ground. You would almost certainly die because of it though.

3) After-life, creationism, basically the same thing in our discussion. People believe in God because of that, and not because the guidelines are so pure and just (that's not saying they're not, that's saying that that's not the reason).

1) Lol indeed.

 

2) There is a difference between ignoring gravity and ignoring evolution. You can live your life just fine without knowing the specifics of either, but if you're working in some factory/office job it honestly doesn't matter whether or not you know about the evolution of some species of finch you've never heard of. And even if you never learn about gravity you'll still learn that you can't fly when you're a little kid.

I'm saying why bother what others believe in if the beliefs make no difference in day to day life?

 

3) Thing is, you have to follow the guidelines for the reward.

Though I'd have to agree with Rexmilotic about the afterlife. Living forever, no matter what kind of afterlife, would suck.

 

 

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.

 

 

It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P?

 

 

And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are.

 

 

 

Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that.

 

No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature.

 

 

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.

 

 

It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P?

 

 

And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are.

 

 

 

Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that.

 

No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature.

 

Lol, you really think researchers just went to people and asked them whether or not they're happy? These researches are usualy built on 40+ questions and are spread across various areas. The happiness question was probably more ilike "Are you happy about your life in general?" etc.

 

 

It was also not done by only one researcher, it was done by researchers all across the world, multiple times, and at different times.

 

 

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.

 

 

It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P?

 

 

And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are.

 

 

 

Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that.

 

No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature.

 

Lol, you really think researchers just went to people and asked them whether or not they're happy? These researches are usualy built on 40+ questions and are spread across various areas. The happiness question was probably more ilike "Are you happy about your life in general?" etc.

 

 

It was also not done by only one researcher, it was done by researchers all across the world, multiple times, and at different times.

 

Once again, it's something subjective that just asking a question can not answer. Question type questions would work for other subjects, but something like "happiness" which has many other conditions, can not be answered purely by questions. Happiness is also different for different people, meaning saying one group is happier than another is just wrong. Also, say you just lost 20$, and you're asked if you're happy with life in general. I would say no, because that issue throws me off, and I'm sure other people would say the same.

I'd say it's pretty likely that religious people are happier. Hell, if I thought I'd get to live in a castle in the clouds after I kick the bucket I would certainly be a lot less depressed and stressed out.

 

 

Edit: That seems super douchey. Interpret it as you will.

 

I prefer nothing happening after death over living an eternity of servitude.

 

 

Yea... From here on out I'm gonna say you know nothing of Christianity.

I'd say it's pretty likely that religious people are happier. Hell, if I thought I'd get to live in a castle in the clouds after I kick the bucket I would certainly be a lot less depressed and stressed out.

 

 

Edit: That seems super douchey. Interpret it as you will.

 

I prefer nothing happening after death over living an eternity of servitude.

 

 

Yea... From here on out I'm gonna say you know nothing of Christianity.

Let's be honest though. Eternity is a long time either way.

Read about 1/3 of it + the conclusion and its pretty standard really.

 

Its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of being(s) which are by there definition magical and impossible to prove/disprove.

 

To argue either way based on your opinion will just lead to people either following you or hating you.

 

IMO the guy who wrote that article was a fool for even trying to prove or disprove it.

Unicorns are real, so a talking moons, and mizards, and elves!

 

No but seriously, nothing is real until we can prove it with solid evidence, sure there COULD be unicorns somewhere out in space on another planet, but we don't know that.

 

Plus the likability of that is like under a percent, waaaaaaaaaaaay under a percent.

nothing is real until we can prove it with solid evidence

 

Something can be real without it being proven. Pluto was real long before we had solid evidence for it. It might seem a bit silly to believe something without evidence, but that's not to say you can't be right.

Hebrews 11:1, first one is the King James version, the second one is a newer version, which is basically a simplified version.

 

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. "

("Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.")

 

 

The Bible itself says that faith isn't something to be proven, it's something that you can't really prove. The Bible says your belief should depend not on the wisdom of men but on the power of God.

Also, you need to look at this from both sides, some atheists have pretty ridiculous arguments too, and most things the guy says in this article I don't really believe myself, I'm not a creationist or any of that, I realize there are many mistakes in the world. And I do believe in evolution and most scientific theories.

 

 

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.

 

 

It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P?

 

 

And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are.

 

 

 

Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that.

 

No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature.

 

Lol, you really think researchers just went to people and asked them whether or not they're happy? These researches are usualy built on 40+ questions and are spread across various areas. The happiness question was probably more ilike "Are you happy about your life in general?" etc.

 

 

It was also not done by only one researcher, it was done by researchers all across the world, multiple times, and at different times.

 

Once again, it's something subjective that just asking a question can not answer. Question type questions would work for other subjects, but something like "happiness" which has many other conditions, can not be answered purely by questions. Happiness is also different for different people, meaning saying one group is happier than another is just wrong. Also, say you just lost 20$, and you're asked if you're happy with life in general. I would say no, because that issue throws me off, and I'm sure other people would say the same.

 

Thus why I said "happy about your life". If you lost 20$, your answer wouldn't change.

 

 

Again, if someone defines himself as happy, it's because he is.

If someone defines himself as unhappy, that's also because he is.

 

 

In terms of probability, you're more likely to pick a random religous person who'd define himself as happy, than someone who isn't. I don't see what the big deal is.

It also makes quite a bit of sense, if you live your life thinking there's someone there guarding you, and that you'll be promised to live in Heaven etc, you're more likely to be happy (or define yourself as happy).

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P?

 

 

And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are.

 

 

 

Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that.

 

No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature.

 

Lol, you really think researchers just went to people and asked them whether or not they're happy? These researches are usualy built on 40+ questions and are spread across various areas. The happiness question was probably more ilike "Are you happy about your life in general?" etc.

 

 

It was also not done by only one researcher, it was done by researchers all across the world, multiple times, and at different times.

 

Once again, it's something subjective that just asking a question can not answer. Question type questions would work for other subjects, but something like "happiness" which has many other conditions, can not be answered purely by questions. Happiness is also different for different people, meaning saying one group is happier than another is just wrong. Also, say you just lost 20$, and you're asked if you're happy with life in general. I would say no, because that issue throws me off, and I'm sure other people would say the same.

 

 

Thus why I said "happy about your life". If you lost 20$, your answer wouldn't change.

 

 

Again, if someone defines himself as happy, it's because he is.

If someone defines himself as unhappy, that's also because he is.

 

 

In terms of probability, you're more likely to pick a random religous person who'd define himself as happy, than someone who isn't. I don't see what the big deal is.

It also makes quite a bit of sense, if you live your life thinking there's someone there guarding you, and that you'll be promised to live in Heaven etc, you're more likely to be happy (or define yourself as happy).

 

Guess what, your answer would change, You wouldn't be happy with your life if you just lost money when someone asked, you'd be sad/mad about the money. It's something subjective, and it changes with people very easily. It's something you can compare to the tv stars, and think you're not really happy compared to what you could be. Or you could compare it to someone worth less than you, and think you're happier than you are. It's something that can't be accurately measured. You don't understand how complex things like this are, because happiness is not something that easy to understand.

 

I'd say it's pretty likely that religious people are happier. Hell, if I thought I'd get to live in a castle in the clouds after I kick the bucket I would certainly be a lot less depressed and stressed out.

 

 

Edit: That seems super douchey. Interpret it as you will.

 

I prefer nothing happening after death over living an eternity of servitude.

 

 

Yea... From here on out I'm gonna say you know nothing of Christianity.

 

I know nothing because I would rather not exist at all than serve and worship a vengeful God who created me only to have me killed, along with many people I know, for the dumbest reasons imaginable? I think you have your reasoning wrong.

No, I'm saying you are clueless as to what the afterlife will be like. And who says he created you to have you killed? All I'm saying is I think you have never read the Bible, and if you haven't you're not qualified to speak against it. Thus why I don't speak out against the Qu'auran (sp) or many other religious documents, because I've not read them.

 

 

Admit it, even if there was proof God existed and loved you, you would still say he doesn't exist for one solid reason:

 

 

You don't want to be proven wrong.

I am agnostic, I think there is something going on that we as humans cannot comprehend. Whether it be god or not, I don't know. I personally find myself likening the christian god to pictures of the Greek's main god, Zeus. I've heard in history channel shows and such that Satan was invented after Christianity became popular so people would quit blaming god for their problems. I think that the Christian faith borrows a lot from many other religions. Watching a show on Moses, the historians disproved everything that in the bible was said was an act of god, there are too many historical facts and scientific facts that get in the way. Where are dinosaurs mentioned in the bible? A day in god's life must be worth thousands of days on earth since humans did not appear until after dinosaurs and yet humans appeared within seven days of the Earth being created and animals flourishing there.

 

I don't see how anyone can debate the fact that there are historical proofs and scientific facts that show a lot of the Christian religion is very exaggerated. I think dinosaurs missing from the bible is because of the fact that whichever prophets were writing the old testament had no idea about them.

 

Jesus was a real person, but somebody exaggerated his story, turning him into the son of god.

 

Overall, I am tolerant of Christians, I just couldn't sit in a church and listen to a chapter from the bible without standing and pointing out historical and scientific flaws within it.

No, I'm saying you are clueless as to what the afterlife will be like. And who says he created you to have you killed? All I'm saying is I think you have never read the Bible, and if you haven't you're not qualified to speak against it. Thus why I don't speak out against the Qu'auran (sp) or many other religious documents, because I've not read them.

 

 

Admit it, even if there was proof God existed and loved you, you would still say he doesn't exist for one solid reason:

 

 

You don't want to be proven wrong.

 

I went to a Christian School for over eight years, to even pass a grade you MUST pass Bible class. In all those years, I didn't learn as much from the Bible as I should have, because they ignored some of the most important parts. I was born gay, but God wants me to die because he created me this way. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)". Hell, I probably know more about the Bible than you do, and it's that reason that the God from the Bible disgusts me. The hypocrisy is just insane, and the amount of people he commands to be murdered is also insane. If there was proof God existed and he loved me, then this situation would be completely different. Problem: it's not, and it's not going to be changing (because God hasn't bothered doing anything in the last 2k years apparently).

Angry atheists make me cry on the inside. :cry:

 

[hide]Or laugh, one of the two.[/hide]

Okay I read through the entire article, and I have to say some of his arguments were pretty convincing at first, but were merely just a twisting of words and not understanding what the bible really said. At one point he said the tenth commandment was (paraphrased)"don't cook a goat in it's mothers milk". I looked up the verse he quoted it from, and uh-oh, look who took it out of context. God was speaking of the three festivals to be celebrated every year, here's the verse in context for those who care

 

Exodus 23:14-19

 

14 "Three times a year you are to celebrate a festival to me.

15 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread; for seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

 

16 "Celebrate the Feast of Harvest with the firstfruits of the crops you sow in your field.

"Celebrate the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in your crops from the field.

 

17 "Three times a year all the men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD.

 

18 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast.

"The fat of my festival offerings must not be kept until morning.

 

19 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.

"Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

 

Once I read that, I figured that this articles arguments were like every other short sighted atheists. Too lazy to actually think things through thoroughly and instead twist words and take things out of context.

 

Not to say I don't agree with him on some points. I agree, religion can twist people to do horrible atrocious things. But I don't adhere to any religions, I am what some would call a Biblical Christian, and my faith is based on the bible and the bible alone.

 

And as for that monkey thing, thats interesting and I'm not all that surprised they didn't get anything lol and yes these arguments are older than any of us, but there have always been those people who challenged what is accepted by the masses. Unfortunately most of these arguments on both sides have become unbelievably exhausted and most people don't really care enough to think things through.

Angry atheists make me cry on the inside. :cry:

 

[hide]Or laugh, one of the two.[/hide]

I am a happy Atheist :thumbsup:

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P?

 

 

And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are.

 

 

 

Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that.

 

No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature.

 

Lol, you really think researchers just went to people and asked them whether or not they're happy? These researches are usualy built on 40+ questions and are spread across various areas. The happiness question was probably more ilike "Are you happy about your life in general?" etc.

 

 

It was also not done by only one researcher, it was done by researchers all across the world, multiple times, and at different times.

 

Once again, it's something subjective that just asking a question can not answer. Question type questions would work for other subjects, but something like "happiness" which has many other conditions, can not be answered purely by questions. Happiness is also different for different people, meaning saying one group is happier than another is just wrong. Also, say you just lost 20$, and you're asked if you're happy with life in general. I would say no, because that issue throws me off, and I'm sure other people would say the same.

 

 

Thus why I said "happy about your life". If you lost 20$, your answer wouldn't change.

 

 

Again, if someone defines himself as happy, it's because he is.

If someone defines himself as unhappy, that's also because he is.

 

 

In terms of probability, you're more likely to pick a random religous person who'd define himself as happy, than someone who isn't. I don't see what the big deal is.

It also makes quite a bit of sense, if you live your life thinking there's someone there guarding you, and that you'll be promised to live in Heaven etc, you're more likely to be happy (or define yourself as happy).

 

Guess what, your answer would change, You wouldn't be happy with your life if you just lost money when someone asked, you'd be sad/mad about the money. It's something subjective, and it changes with people very easily. It's something you can compare to the tv stars, and think you're not really happy compared to what you could be. Or you could compare it to someone worth less than you, and think you're happier than you are. It's something that can't be accurately measured. You don't understand how complex things like this are, because happiness is not something that easy to understand.

 

No, you may not be happy, but you'd still be happy about your life[/i[ even if you lost 20$.

 

 

I hate repeating myself, but the fact that happiness is measured individualy by each person does not matter, because on the bottom line, if they define themselves as happy, it's because they are.

To make sure we avoid more misunderstandings, I'll rephrase my initial statement- Religous people are more likely to define themselves as happy.

 

 

 

I think your problem with that statement is your (possibly just) hatred towards religion which gets you annoyed when shown in a good light. You must remember that the fact that religous are more likely to be happy (or define themselves as happy for what it's worth), isn't necessarily good, I'd even call it bad. It's just like the example I gave, a drunk person is more likely to find joy in things, but I'd rather be sober most of the time.

 

 

Please understand that the fact religous people are more likely to define themsleves as happy (about their lives...) has good reasoning behind it. A person who thinks someone is out there for them, that they're eventualy going to exist in Heaven, that a perfect entity is on their side, would likely make them happier. There's nothing "insane" about it.

No, I'm saying you are clueless as to what the afterlife will be like. And who says he created you to have you killed? All I'm saying is I think you have never read the Bible, and if you haven't you're not qualified to speak against it. Thus why I don't speak out against the Qu'auran (sp) or many other religious documents, because I've not read them.

 

 

Admit it, even if there was proof God existed and loved you, you would still say he doesn't exist for one solid reason:

 

 

You don't want to be proven wrong.

 

I went to a Christian School for over eight years, to even pass a grade you MUST pass Bible class. In all those years, I didn't learn as much from the Bible as I should have, because they ignored some of the most important parts. I was born gay, but God wants me to die because he created me this way. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)". Hell, I probably know more about the Bible than you do, and it's that reason that the God from the Bible disgusts me. The hypocrisy is just insane, and the amount of people he commands to be murdered is also insane. If there was proof God existed and he loved me, then this situation would be completely different. Problem: it's not, and it's not going to be changing (because God hasn't bothered doing anything in the last 2k years apparently).

 

 

Dude, I'm gay as well. God doesn't hate us at all. I used to hate God because I thought he hated me, but he doesn't! I can post numerous links about facts that GOd doesn't hate gay people. And no, you probably don't know more than me. (Just saying)

 

 

For starters:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

 

Do you still think God hates you? And if your background is the way it really is, then it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away. (just my $.02)

 

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, I probably did. I'm just sick of people claiming to have read the Bible, when its obvious they haven't they just want to appear more knowledgeable.