If you raise a person neutrally about religion AND also educate them, they are less likely to become religious. Most of these 'educated' people you are talking about simply have religion deeply rooted in their background and all of their families.These lands are some the most educated and populated; now if a foreign religion can have such pulling power, than how exactly can it be overly wrong? Popularity may not make something right, but if 33% of the world comes to accept and keep Christianity, even with the development and education of N.America, Europe, Russia and parts of Asia, than that says something about even a part of it's teachings. People don't (generally) accept things that are evil, stupid and against the ordinary flow of the world, da?
You once again show how delusional you are about life itself. Ever heard of racism, politics, and world wars? Yeah humayns are too smurt for deze! They can't possibly be wrong about our views on the world and also corrupt at the same time! Humans are great people!People don't (generally) accept things that are evil, stupid and against the ordinary flow of the world, da?
A valid arguement.If you raise a person neutrally about religion AND also educate them, they are less likely to become religious. Most of these 'educated' people you are talking about simply have religion deeply rooted in their background and all of their families.
It is natural to believe in a deity; humans want a sense of purpose
Bleak? I don't understand... not to mention religion has done little to nothing to bring about real 'peace' in the world.My my, aren't you a bleak one, how dare we have religions preaching their hippie bulls-hit about peace, love and tolerance, eh now?
What difference does it make?Hence the reason I said generally.
Ghost Anime said:It is natural to believe in a deity; humans want a sense of purpose, but simply because many do doesn't mean it's right. It's ad populism. Ask these same people why they believe and they wouldn't give you much different answers than the ones you've heard on this forum.
Emotions shouldn't be used when you're making statements about objectivity.2) Goodbye emtions, goodbye those too sick, injured, weak, silly, damaged, old and unbalanced to contribute economically to society.
The same reason you're apparently Agnostic.How is monotheistic religion unreliable?
What are you trying to prove here? If you are trying to prove that logic, research, and objective facts don't always lead to the right answer, this is a terrible way to do it.People sick/old/damaged can't contribut directly to the economic situtation of society, thus a burden and thus need to be removed.
What? That people aren't sure about god's role in their life and aren't sure they could be faithful to a religion? they are suspicious of those who claim to have answers.GA said:The same reason you're apparently Agnostic.
GA said:What are you trying to prove here? If you are trying to prove that logic, research, and objective facts don't always lead to the right answer, this is a terrible way to do it.
How can you compare whether we should take care of the disabled to "Does God exist?" These questions aren't even asked in the same context. When I was responding to you about how to find out what's 'right'; I was ONLY talking about objective facts.
I thought you would get that considering we are discussing something that is objective and not subjective.
Uh.. sure I guess.What? That people aren't sure about god's role in their life and aren't sure they could be faithful to a religion? they are suspicious of those who claim to have answers.
And it's also a subjective feeling on whether to do anything for these people. It's not the same as stating whether something exists or not.Why not? It's objective fact that those who can't work are a economc drain. It's an example, that is all.
Both of these things are done by feelings. They aren't comparable whatsoever. These examples are worse than your economic one for these reasons alone.I asked how do you know if something is right, You answered with logic, research and reasoning (a good answer) but by that line I could rape someone as I reasoned that I can feel pleasure from it. If I hate someone, then I reason that by killing them I can feel better.
'Everything'? What are these 'everything'?Some religions do have contradictions. Everything does, though.
There are even contradictions in these at points.So long as the main values of a religion are kept
Who pretty much live the same life as you and make similar arguments as you. What's there to be suspicious about?But I is also suspicious of atheists.
What on EARTH are you talking about?If my example of the logic of using emotion (that I know exists when you don't know it exists)
I never declared anything like this.then your declaration of there being no deity sounds just as silly.
Most Atheists do not declare that God or gods don't exist 100%. Stereotyping Atheists when you barely know the definition of one is silly.You see, your based just as much on faith and interpretation as a bible-basher who is trying to prove a deity. Just because your atheist dosn't make you more logical than us agnostics or those relgioites as we have no more fact than each other.
And what else would real be honestly? Even if my brain is lying to me, what else do I have to go off of?If so, then real is just your brain obtaining signals from your senses.