Yes I have the audacity to post my word here and say that hope has a name, joy has a name, peace has a name, love has a name - and its name is Carrie, it's Jacob, it's Henry, and it's Hazel, and countless others too. Praise their names forever! I am not afraid to call anyone [who can truly identify with another] God, or have faith [in what's proven]. I don't operate on opinions and interest alone, but especially on strong convictions. I am convinced that we are what we have been looking for (all this time), and believe me, it's a humbling, sobering thought, but not only that, is also revolutionary, and it will change the world forever.
Yes, we can see and feel the changes of that *revolutionary* thinking everywhere
I understand very well. "Humanism" is neither new, nor revolutionary in fact it is well in line with modern western society, that wants atomized individuals willing to believe anything
the dates have changed, but fallacies of human mind had not.
Please go on and tell me how you, Carrie, Jakob, Henry, Hazel (hope, I did not forget anybody) present unity of matter and spirit in our existence? How you create and then alter laws that govern plants and animals, rivers and mountains, molecules aswell as massive black holes.
What is interesting is that you have faith - if your comment is genuine. You just focus it solely on your relationship with other human beings. Thats not a bad thing. These secular religions are without perspective, but they certainly dont make you a bad person. Have a nice day.
Yes i believe in god, there is a superior being above us who is waching us and protecting us from evil.
It's even funny to read it. What protects you is your God? Than you think you are better than soldiers who die protecting your country? Why your God does not protect them. I think they have more rights to protection than you. Why, why, why?
Speaking of soldiers....
Consider the following scenario:
Two soldiers from two opposing armies, both praying to the SAME God to win the battle and survive:
1. Soldier A dies, soldier B lives - God did not answer prayer
2. Soldier A lives, soldier B dies - God did not answer prayer
3. Soldier A lives, soldier B lives, but army A wins - God did not answer prayer
4. Soldier A lives, soldier B lives, but army B wins - God did not answer prayer
5. Soldier A lives, soldier B lives, but nobody wins - God did not answer prayers
Praying cannot work. Physically impossible.
And that is supposed to prove?
Guys, seriously, sometimes I feel this forum is full of autists. Praying is not making corporate bussiness deals with comicbook Superman. The praying man reminds himself of his relationship with God, with all the matter and spirit in the Universe. Him as mere part of a whole. Praying while perhaps "weird" from mechanical, materialistic point of view, mobilizes your internal strength. Reminding you, that wherever you, you are not alone. And whatever you do after - will be judged.
If we use our logical reasoning not like that failed argument about soldier and prayers, we could possibly arrive in a conclusion that it is better to worship God our savior than not to.I will first cross out some argument that you are starting to think of.
''No one can prove that God is not true nor no one can prove that God is true'', am I correct? So, we can't start an argument regarding the existence of God so it is up to you whether to believe him or not since no one can tell which is right among you. In addition,
prayers who are not granted can't debunk the existence of a God and also
prayers who are granted (especially miracles which even the brightest in the field of science can't even explain) can support the idea that there is a God.
So, let's proceed with justifying the first sentence:
If God is not true, then the believers would gain nothing and also the non-believers, right? But what if God is true then the believers will gain something and the non-believer will lose something. In a much simpler way,
you will gain something by believing in God than not to. Let's give an actual scenario, if God is true and save your souls in hell by believing him (take note we can't debunk anything if we can't prove that it doesn't exist nor it does exist so we can't start an argument by saying that this is not true or this is true; we are being logical here and no bias so if you proceed in doing so then you have a failed argument by 'fallacy') then you do gain something but if you do not believe in God then you will just suffer and burn yourself forever. On the other hand, if God is not true then you die, I die and end of the story and you will not gain anything.
We lose greatly in not believing God but also, we gain nothing if God is not true, we gain greatly in believing God but also we gain nothing if God is not true.
----Let's examine it carefully:
---------> If true: either we gain or lose and of course we choose to gain than to lose something, right?
---------> If false: we gain or lose nothing and end of the story.
But of course I'm not saying that we should believe in God because that is the logical thing to do. The purpose in this argument is to promote respect to the beliefs of one another and put your argument straight on not using some stupid fallacies which really degrade your understanding regarding the matter so in other words you are promoting a stupid and dumb argument here lad. In argument, the way you deliver it should contain the element of being logical and to choose the words you are using in order to not offend or disrespect someone to promote a healthy, intellectual, and smooth flow of argument.
In conclusion,
no one can prove nor disprove God's existence hence no one has the right to conclude that it is true or not. This argument is not bias and has used enough facts to support the validity of this argument. The religion should promote the well-being of one another that is by instilling good virtues, morals, and right conduct so who are we to destroy this institution who mold a good citizen and become a good citizen. Whether this religion believes in God and by believing God they can promote a society with people having good manners and right conduct then who are we to judge? (And is it logical enough to let it stay as it promotes well-being and we ought to gain something by having it than destroying though we will not gain anything?)
We can't judge something with a fragment information or knowledge hence we judge something having enough details, information, and knowledge regarding the said matter like a trial in the court. If you are thinking in starting an argument regarding the religions instilling bad virtues, morals, and wrong conduct then it is another story or argument but remember that mostly the religion itself is true and good with its intentions but the hearts of those religious leaders who are corrupted inside should not tarnish the real teachings of that particular religion.
P.S. we can't go anywhere by presenting an invalid argument or fallacy.