Responses to attacks on faith

[tonyrey]

Unless of course, she’s tortured, raped and killed. No silver lining there and no, no one is getting any stronger out of that one…

How do we know you’re not going to torture, rape and kill anyone? After all there is nothing to stop you - except the fear of being caught. You believe we exist by chance, death is a full stop and goodness and justice are human inventions… All you have to do is to be very careful…

 

[neisan]

That is the purpose of a forum…

I know,I just wanted to provide some logic and it turns to aliens and Hindu milk miracles X_X.Agh,i think I should stick to moral theology and see if I’m stepping on cracks or not.

 

[neisan]

Also,to say something to those Catholics reading,how do we know that some miracles aren’t done by those who would just love to mislead us.You guys know EXACTLY who I’m talking aboutglances to the booklet with the picture of Saint Michael chaining Satan.As we have said,a miracle does not prove that a religion is true.Can a demon not do this milk miracle?we must remember while there is God and his angels who show themselves through miracles,there are also demons who would mislead us and that they have the power to manipulate the world in ways so that the imatured people of the world.Take Satanists as an example.I know of one that said that Satan came to him and told him he was the true god and that the christians god was an upsurper.When I heard this,i was feeling anger and pity.He was such a fool to believe that.Satan and his followers will do anything to mislead us,using “miracles”,visions,and other things to drive us from God.This is my last post on this dratted thread.

 

[neisan]

If you’re going to play games…

God is all powerful, can God create something so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Cite source, with a link.

Cite source with a link.

That doesn’t make them any less real, now does it?

…yet they don’t mean anything to me.

No man is free from the ugly stain of sin and not man is innocent…at least according to Christians.

That’s called, keeping your head firmly planted in the sand.

Unless of course, she’s tortured, raped and killed. No silver lining there and no, no one is getting any stronger out of that one…

1.You’re asking me to get a link from a person who knows man who did this?What am I,the public library?Then the Haiti man was on the news.While digging through rubble,they found an almost dead man inside.not to mention that people had survived a week without water before this.If you want a link for that,go to a news website.
2.I CAN’T do anything about the priests.I’m fourteen,what do you expect me to do?I can only pray.
3.No One is free of sin because it is what humans have a drive to do.
4.Have you heard the story f Job?He had his family,land,and wealth taken away from him.He was afflicted with sores(I think,my memories are somewhat foggy) and guess what he did?He remained faithful to God and he got even more than what he had.
5.Saints mean something because they all had positive effects on history.Were it not for francsis of Assisi,the chruches and art in muslim territory would have been destroyed.Were it not for Saint Joan,France’s war with Britian would’ve have taken ages.Or worse,France would have been a province of Britain.The Jesuit order,founded by Ignatius de Loyola,helped other with chairty.
6.Hindu gods are just not real to me.God is and when I pray to him,I feel that someone is listening.Also in regard to the hindu milk miracle,this could very well be demons trying mislead us,blah,blah.Just read my reply some above this.
7.God is all-powerful,so i don’t know what you mean.I mean you were responding to my brain analogy and I don’t understand what you were getting at.Just forget it cause i’m not replying.

Finally,(this is not to you ZatZat)UFOs can just very well be creations of God.Who says he couldn’t make more?

 

[AntiTheist]

If you say that UFO sightings and Religion are the same then you have no idea what you are saying.

The comparison in question is not between UFOs and gods. Obviously, UFOs and gods are vastly different claims.

The comparison is between the kind of belief in each case, which is belief without evidence.

It’s irrelevant that there are fewer UFO believers or that there are some non-serious UFO believers. That’s not the point.

The point is that we all agree – I hope – that no one should accept UFO claims on the basis of flimsy evidence that is ultimately no evidence at all (unconfirmable anecdotes, appeals to emotion, the existence of unexplainable phenomena).

I assert that god beliefs rest on “evidence” that is no more solid than the evidence used to claim that UFOs are visiting the earth. Unconfirmed anecdotes? Check. Appeals to emotion? Check. Unexplained phenomena (“But how did the universe get here? Where did life come from? Obviously, there’s a god!”)? Check.

“Evidence,” is that which can be measured and detected and compels belief. The kind of evidence you need to accept a claim is going to be different depending on the claim, but the fact is that randomly accepting extraordinary claims without any kind of solid evidence doesn’t work.

 

[mrhenrik]

1. How do you distinguish absurd beliefs from true beliefs?
2. What do you regard as “evidence”?
3. Don’t you have faith in your power of reason?
4. On what is that based?

1. I don’t. I call them both “beliefs”. I find the labelling of “absurd” and “true” to vary a lot depending on who I ask. ;p
2. Depends on how you define evidence. There is, of course, no absolute evidence for anything. There is, however, various grades of evidence. An example:

I look outside, it’s cloudy. I reckon it might rain. Now the clouds might be evidence that it has already rained and it’ll be sunny, or the clouds might be evidence that there will rain. Actually, the clouds might just be evidence that today will be cloudy. In any case, I decide the evidence is strong enough to give me reason to bring an umbrella - if it doesn’t rain, at least my umbrella is small and light-weight.

Now on the subject of the existence of the Christian god, there is no evidence as far as I can see. The bringing of an umbrella was a minuscule change to my life and thus I didn’t need much evidence, but the existence of a god, especially if it’s the Christian god, requires an extraordinary change on my part - and thus it would only be fair to expect that there will be extraordinary evidence for it. Still there’s nothing.

3/4. I’m not sure if I understand what you mean. I guess my power of reason is limited.

1.You’re asking me to get a link from a person who knows man who did this?What am I,the public library?Then the Haiti man was on the news.While digging through rubble,they found an almost dead man inside.not to mention that people had survived a week without water before this.If you want a link for that,go to a news website.

I’m sure you can provide us with an example? I read about something similar to this, but in that article it was pointed out that the man was found thirty days after the earthquake - there was no evidence suggesting he’d been there since the earthquake. There were numerous minor earthquakes (I do not know the English word for them) after the first one.

I hope you understand that your retelling of a story retold to you based on a story told from a person in Haiti cannot be used as evidence for the existence of the Christian god.

2.I CAN’T do anything about the priests.I’m fourteen,what do you expect me to do?I can only pray.

Of course you can. You can be unhappy about it, talk to your friends about how unhappy you are about it and ask them to do the same. Who knows, perhaps you have a revolution on your hands soon.

4.Have you heard the story f Job?He had his family,land,and wealth taken away from him.He was afflicted with sores(I think,my memories are somewhat foggy) and guess what he did?He remained faithful to God and he got even more than what he had.

The story of Job is just that - the story of Job. There is no more credibility to the story of Job than there is to any of the other Bible stories. At best, it’s a good story. It cannot possibly serve as evidence of anything.

5.Saints mean something because they all had positive effects on history.Were it not for francsis of Assisi,the chruches and art in muslim territory would have been destroyed.Were it not for Saint Joan,France’s war with Britian would’ve have taken ages.Or worse,France would have been a province of Britain.The Jesuit order,founded by Ignatius de Loyola,helped other with chairty.
6.Hindu gods are just not real to me.God is and when I pray to him,I feel that someone is listening.Also in regard to the hindu milk miracle,this could very well be demons trying mislead us,blah,blah.Just read my reply some above this.

The saints part were brought up in relation to miracles, were they not? I’m sure some saints made an excellent effort to the world, and I’m equally convinced some of them did not but were still credited for it. However, that does not serve to validate as true the actions of other saints. They aren’t a group of people per se, people are sainted after they’ve done their “thing”.

Other religion’s miracles can of course be fake, and I do suspect they are - but what makes your miracles different, except for the fact that they belong to the religion of your choice?

 

[tonyrey]

1. How do you distinguish absurd beliefs from true beliefs?

If you don’t distinguish absurd beliefs from true beliefs all your beliefs and statements are worthless!

2. What do you regard as “evidence”?

1. Depends on how you define evidence. There is, of course, no absolute evidence for anything. There is, however, various grades of evidence. An example:

I look outside, it’s cloudy. I reckon it might rain. Now the clouds might be evidence that it has already rained and it’ll be sunny, or the clouds might be evidence that there will rain. Actually, the clouds might just be evidence that today will be cloudy. In any case, I decide the evidence is strong enough to give me reason to bring an umbrella - if it doesn’t rain, at least my umbrella is small and light-weight.

Now on the subject of the existence of the Christian god, there is no evidence as far as I can see. The bringing of an umbrella was a minuscule change to my life and thus I didn’t need much evidence, but the existence of a god, especially if it’s the Christian god, requires an extraordinary change on my part - and thus it would only be fair to expect that there will be extraordinary evidence for it. Still there’s nothing.

What is the evidence that you are thinking? Can you see it, touch it, taste it, smell it or hear it? How do you know you are thinking? What is the evidence that** you** exist? How do you observe your mind?

3. Don’t you have faith in your power of reason?

I’m not sure if I understand what you mean. I guess my power of reason is limited.

Do you trust your power of reason to reach true conclusions? If so why?
Where did the power of reason originate?

 

[mrhenrik]

If you don’t distinguish absurd beliefs from true beliefs all your beliefs and statements are worthless!

No, I just don’t use those labels. There are varying degrees of truth. I give more credibility to things that are more likely to be true.

What is the evidence that you are thinking? Can you see it, touch it, taste it, smell it or hear it? How do you know you are thinking? What is the evidence that** you** exist? How do you observe your mind?

Since I just formed a thought in my head about this, I would assume I’m thinking. Of course I don’t know whether that is true or not. I cannot tell whether I exist or not, although I base my life on the assumption that I do. In any case, these are questions I rarely bother to think about because there is little evidence to be found around them and if they turned out to be false (I’m not thinking, I don’t exist), well… it wouldn’t really matter, would it.

Do you trust your power of reason to reach true conclusions? If so why?
Where did the power of reason originate?

No. I trust my power of reason to come to a reasonable conclusion around a truth, but not to find the fundamental truth.Of course, in all instances I can think of at the moment, a fundamental truth is not needed.

 

[tonyrey]

If you don’t distinguish absurd beliefs from true beliefs all your beliefs and statements are worthless!

How do you assess what is more likely to be true?

What is the evidence that you are thinking? Can you see it, touch it, taste it, smell it or hear it? How do you know you are thinking? What is the evidence that you exist? How do you observe your mind?

Since I just formed a thought in my head about this, I would assume I’m thinking. Of course I don’t know whether that is true or not.

Can you see, hear, touch, taste or smell your thought? If not how do you know it exists?
How do you know it is in your head?

I cannot tell whether I exist or not, although I base my life on the assumption that I do. In any case, these are questions I rarely bother to think about because there is little evidence to be found around them and if they turned out to be false (I’m not thinking, I don’t exist), well… it wouldn’t really matter, would it.

If you are an illusion surely it would make a big difference to everyone in your family!

Do you trust your power of reason to reach true conclusions? If so why?

No. I trust my power of reason to come to a reasonable conclusion around a truth, but not to find the fundamental truth.Of course, in all instances I can think of at the moment, a fundamental truth is not needed.

How would you define a fundamental truth? If no fundamental truths are needed you are not entitled to decide whether or not God exists…

Where did the power of reason originate?

 

[mrhenrik]

How do you assess what is more likely to be true?

You look at the evidence, of course. The amount of evidence required would depend on the significance of the “truth”.

Can you see, hear, touch, taste or smell your thought? If not how do you know it exists?
How do you know it is in your head?
If you are an illusion surely it would make a big difference to everyone in your family!

I have a very small amount of evidence for the fact that I think (I’m thinking this). It’s not a lot of evidence, but it’s enough for me to base my life on the fact that I do think - as I explained earlier.

If I’m an illusion it wouldn’t make a difference to my family, because I would have been an illusion all along and thus no change has occurred.

How would you define a fundamental truth? If no fundamental truths are needed you are not entitled to decide whether or not God exists…

A fundamental truth is the one truth - what something really is. Of course I am not entitled to decide whether or not your god exists, either he does or he doesn’t - I’m not involved in the process. If you mean how I can decide whether I believe that a god exists or not, that’s simple enough.

You (plural) claim that a god exists but fail to present me with any relevant evidence. The existence of a god would be a very big thing calling for extraordinary change in my life - thus extraordinary evidence for the claim should be expected, yet there is no evidence at all.

Where did the power of reason originate?

New topic already?

I don’t know. I’m not a biologist.

 

[tonyrey]

A fundamental truth is the one truth - what something really is. Of course I am not entitled to decide whether or not your god exists, either he does or he doesn’t - I’m not involved in the process.

Good!

You (plural) claim that a god exists but fail to present me with any relevant evidence. The existence of a god would be a very big thing calling for extraordinary change in my life - thus extraordinary evidence for the claim should be expected, yet there is no evidence at all.

There is plenty of evidence for Design which includes your power of reason - which you cannot explain:

**Where did the power of reason originate**?

I don’t know. I’m not a biologist.

 

[neisan]

just checking in on this,i think i’ll leave my debates to the umineko universe.At least they don’t get as crazy as this.

 

[mrhenrik]

There is plenty of evidence for Design which includes your power of reason - which you cannot explain:

Hold your horses for a second here–you use the fact that I cannot explain something as evidence for your theory? Come on, now that’s just silly. The fact that I personally cannot explain where the power of reason (presuming such a power exists, I have a feeling you’re making this up) does not add any credibility to your theory whatsoever.

Some decades ago we didn’t know a lot of things. Now we do know a lot of things. Who is to say we will not know the answer to your question in the future?

And in any case - why is it automatically evidence for your particular theory? I mean, perhaps we got the power of reason from space aliens? Or, I’m sure one of the Hindu gods could be held responsible

neisan - I’m sure it doesn’t. Welcome to the real world.

 

[tonyrey]

Hold your horses for a second here–you use the fact that I cannot explain something as evidence for your theory? Come on, now that’s just silly. The fact that I personally cannot explain where the power of reason (presuming such a power exists, I have a feeling you’re making this up) does not add any credibility to your theory whatsoever.

You obviously prefer to take refuge in irresponsible ignorance and deny that God exists** for no reason whatsoever**. It does not add any credibility to **your **theory for the simple reason that you have no theory whatsoever!

Some decades ago we didn’t know a lot of things. Now we do know a lot of things.

Indeed. Now we know how to blow entire cities to smithereens, leave one third of the world’s population hungry, and destroy all life on this planet. Very impressive progress indeed!

Who is to say we will not know the answer to your question in the future?

A pathetic plea invoking the power of science to explain **everything **under the sun - and beyond! Your blind faith is touching but totally unrealistic. How does science explain itself? And cure the insanity of the lust for power with its consequences - unending war and bloodshed?

And in any case - why is it automatically evidence for your particular theory? I mean, perhaps we got the power of reason from space aliens? Or, I’m sure one of the Hindu gods could be held responsible

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps! **Perhaps **we got the power of reason from atomic dust… An old refrain which ignores the reasons why reason is a more reasonable explanation than unreasoning processes…

Welcome to the real world.

What you really mean is “Welcome to the ‘real’ world of blind, valueless, purposeless, irrational processes! Come and join the party where man is the measure of all things, decides who shall be born and who shall die and where everything is permissible…”

 

[mrhenrik]

You obviously prefer to take refuge in irresponsible ignorance and deny that God exists** for no reason whatsoever**. It does not add any credibility to **your **theory for the simple reason that you have no theory whatsoever!

Actually, I am not denying that your god exists per se, I am just not accepting your claims that he does. I don’t need heaps of evidence to deny a claim if the claim is not supported by evidence at all.

True, I have no theory at all. I don’t know how reason came to be, but that does not give your theory credibility. The more we talk about this “power of reason” the more obscure it seems to me. On what basis do you claim that we have a power of reason? Judging by the tone of the rest of your post it seems clear that if we did get a power of reason from someone, whoever gave it to us must’ve given us a flawed one.

Indeed. Now we know how to blow entire cities to smithereens, leave one third of the world’s population hungry, and destroy all life on this planet. Very impressive progress indeed!

Well, yeah - but that’s not what I meant.

A pathetic plea invoking the power of science to explain **everything **under the sun - and beyond! Your blind faith is touching but totally unrealistic. How does science explain itself? And cure the insanity of the lust for power with its consequences - unending war and bloodshed?

I’m not saying it will explain it, I’m saying it might. What is there about science that science needs to explain? Also, if you expect science to cure the insanity bla bla you must’ve misunderstood the concept of science.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps! **Perhaps **we got the power of reason from atomic dust… An old refrain which ignores the reasons why reason is a more reasonable explanation than unreasoning processes…

Perhaps we did, yeah. I observe there is as much evidence for that as for your theory of the origin of reason (whatever reason might be).

What you really mean is “Welcome to the ‘real’ world of blind, valueless, purposeless, irrational processes! Come and join the party where man is the measure of all things, decides who shall be born and who shall die and where everything is permissible…”

Well, yeah - but I thought the smiley sounded nicer.

 

[tonyrey]

You obviously prefer to take refuge in irresponsible ignorance and deny that God exists for no reason whatsoever. It does not add any credibility to your theory for the simple reason that you have no theory whatsoever!

Of course not. You don’t need any evidence at all because you don’t seem to believe in anything! “I am **just **not accepting your claims” sums it up perfectly!

True, I have no theory at all. I don’t know how reason came to be, but that does not give your theory credibility.

How do you assess what is credible?

. The more we talk about this “power of reason” the more obscure it seems to me. On what basis do you claim that we have a power of reason?

On the basis of the success of science and the fact that we can communicate and understand the statements of others.

Judging by the tone of the rest of your post it seems clear that if we did get a power of reason from someone, whoever gave it to us must’ve given us a flawed one.

Your negativity increases from moment to moment… Yet you rely on your power of reason. What do you think enables you to contribute to this forum?

Indeed. Now we know how to blow entire cities to smithereens, leave one third of the world’s population hungry, and destroy all life on this planet. Very impressive progress indeed!

Well, yeah - but that’s not what I meant.

But that’s what your negativity implies…

A pathetic plea invoking the power of science to explain everything under the sun - and beyond! Your blind faith is touching but totally unrealistic. How does science explain itself? And cure the insanity of the lust for power with its consequences - unending war and bloodshed?

I’m not saying it will explain it, I’m saying it might.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps… Not much sign of it happening… In fact quite the reverse - if we are to judge by the state of the world…

What is there about science that science needs to explain?

You think science is based on thin air?

Also, if you expect science to cure the insanity bla bla you must’ve misunderstood the concept of science.

Science doesn’t seem to be the panacea you implied it to be…

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps! Perhaps we got the power of reason from atomic dust… An old refrain which ignores the reasons why reason is a more reasonable explanation than unreasoning processes…

Perhaps we did, yeah. I observe there is as much evidence for that as for your theory of the origin of reason (whatever reason might be).

Produce it!

What you really mean is “Welcome to the ‘real’ world of blind, valueless, purposeless, irrational processes! Come and join the party where man is the measure of all things, decides who shall be born and who shall die and where everything is permissible…”

Well, yeah - but I thought the smiley sounded nicer.

It’s significant you don’t dispute the fact… But then it’s easier to be totally negative. There’s nothing to defend. The only problem is that it gets you precisely nowhere…

 

[mrhenrik]

Of course not. You don’t need any evidence at all because you don’t seem to believe in anything! “I am **just **not accepting your claims” sums it up perfectly!

That does indeed sum it up perfectly. Me not believing in anything is a statement that could have broad implications, but yes - I don’t believe in any form of religion, supernatural beings, spiritualism, superstition or anything like those.

How do you assess what is credible?

You look at the evidence of it.

On the basis of the success of science and the fact that we can communicate and understand the statements of others.

Considering the “evil” in the world as well, such as crusades, suicide bombings, wars and all that jazz I would rather say we seem not to have an universal power of reason.

Your negativity increases from moment to moment… Yet you rely on your power of reason. What do you think enables you to contribute to this forum?

I was just pointing out the paradox that you claim we all have a power of reason, yet in the next moment complain about the evil and wrong-doing in the world which would clearly not be products of reason.

But that’s what your negativity implies…

It seems to me that you instinctively perceive my comments as negative because our views conflict. I can’t see any of my posts containing more negativity than anyone else’s.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps… Not much sign of it happening… In fact quite the reverse - if we are to judge by the state of the world…

Perhaps, yes. I don’t know. I’m preaching the gospel of “I don’t know”.

You think science is based on thin air?

Sort of, yes. Science is a concept so it must in a sense be based on the metaphorical statement “thin air”.

Science doesn’t seem to be the panacea you implied it to be…

I never implied such a thing. Please show me where I did?

Produce it!

There is none, that’s my point.

It’s significant you don’t dispute the fact… But then it’s easier to be totally negative. There’s nothing to defend. The only problem is that it gets you precisely nowhere…

It gets me nowhere, but I get myself wherever I want to go. You see, the fact that I don’t have a religion holding my hand telling me what’s wrong and what’s not doesn’t unable me to decide for myself.

The world is, when it all comes down to it, blind, valueless, purposeless processes. We give them purpose and value. Technically I guess man decides who dies and who is born as well, but that doesn’t mean we cannot make good choices and live a happy life in harmony with each other. I would even say it’s better than any organised religion because nobody tells me who I am supposed to hate and which part of life I am meant to suppress.

 

[tonyrey]

You don’t need any evidence at all because you don’t seem to believe in anything! “I am just not accepting your claims” sums it up perfectly!

“not believing in** anything**” excludes everything - including science…

How do you assess what is credible?

You look at the evidence of it.

You just look? What do you regard as “evidence”? What you can smell, taste, hear, see and touch? Nothing else?
Quote:

Considering the “evil” in the world as well, such as crusades, suicide bombings, wars and all that jazz I would rather say we seem not to have an universal power of reason.

Evil merely demonstrates that the power of reason is either not used or misused, **not **that it doesn’t exist.

I was just pointing out the paradox that you claim we all have a power of reason, yet in the next moment complain about the evil and wrong-doing in the world which would clearly not be products of reason.

Evil merely demonstrates that the power of reason is either not used or misused, **not **that it doesn’t exist.

It seems to me that you instinctively perceive my comments as negative because our views conflict. I can’t see any of my posts containing more negativity than anyone else’s.

“Me not believing in anything”!

Perhaps, yes. I don’t know. I’m preaching the gospel of “I don’t know”.

More negativity than anyone else!

Science doesn’t seem to be the panacea you implied it to be…

.
I never implied such a thing. Please show me where I did?

What else do you believe in?

Produce the evidence!

There is none, that’s my point.

More negativity than anyone else!

It’s significant you don’t dispute the fact… But then it’s easier to be totally negative. There’s nothing to defend. The only problem is that it gets you precisely nowhere…

It gets me nowhere, but I get myself wherever I want to go.

Then you obviously believe in something…

You see, the fact that I don’t have a religion holding my hand telling me what’s wrong and what’s not doesn’t unable me to decide for myself.

But how do you **know **you’re capable of deciding?

The world is, when it all comes down to it, blind, valueless, purposeless processes. We give them purpose and value.

In other words you believe what suits you…

Technically I guess man decides who dies and who is born as well, but that doesn’t mean we cannot make good choices and live a happy life in harmony with each other. I would even say it’s better than any organised religion because nobody tells me who I am supposed to hate and which part of life I am meant to suppress.

Your notion of religion is obviously distorted. Ever heard of the Good Samaritan?

Of course not. You don’t need any evidence at all because you don’t seem to believe in anything! “I am just not accepting your claims” sums it up perfectly!

That does indeed sum it up perfectly. Me not believing in anything is a statement that could have broad implications, but yes - I don’t believe in any form of religion, supernatural beings, spiritualism, superstition or anything like those.

Or anything else! The implications are broader than you think. You’re obviously a nihilist… with whom it’s impossible to reason. Farewell… and good luck!

 

[mrhenrik]

“not believing in** anything**” excludes everything - including science…

Depends on your definition of believing of course. Science isn’t a faith that you can choose to believe in or not. Science is, according to Wikipedia, a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

You just look? What do you regard as “evidence”? What you can smell, taste, hear, see and touch? Nothing else?

What I can observe with my senses is a good start, yes. Generally, things that can be observed either through our senses or through instruments.

Evil merely demonstrates that the power of reason is either not used or misused, **not **that it doesn’t exist.

Fair enough. I would still like a definition of the power of reason though. What is reason - and for clarification, where do you claim the power of reason comes from?

More negativity than anyone else!

How is that negative? I think it’s a beautiful thing that we do not know everything about our world, and I’m delighted by the opportunity to discover more.

What else do you believe in?

How is this related to my statement?

Then you obviously believe in something…

Yes, I believe in a number of things. I said I do not believe in organised religion, superstition, a higher being and all that jazz. I do believe, for instance, that every action of every person is based on a good intention if you dig deep enough.

But how do you **know **you’re capable of deciding?

I have made a number of decisions in my life, I would assume that indicates I am capable of deciding.

In other words you believe what suits you…

No, I believe in what there is evidence of, proportional to the change required.

Your notion of religion is obviously distorted. Ever heard of the Good Samaritan?

I have, yes. It was read to me a number of times as a child. Of course there are some less negative sides to religion, but none of them outweigh the negative sides - in my opinion.

Or anything else! The implications are broader than you think. You’re obviously a nihilist… with whom it’s impossible to reason. Farewell… and good luck!

It’s with disappointment I note that you have decided to retort to ad hominem to end this discussion. I thought we had a good conversation going where we respectfully explored each other’s opinions, but clearly you are not interested in continuing the discussion. Perhaps you are better off in one of the other sections of this forum where you will encounter only opinions that fit your own.