Well, let's begin with saying that I do understand where you are coming from but it's inconsistent, for me, none the less. I wonder what free will constitutes for you?
Whether or not one decides that limited options means I cannot choose from all the options and thus cannot consider myself having free will is odd. I have 100% free will from what I am aware of, whether some decisions sometimes may feel harder than others.
Yes, I have behavioral patterns and some of them are possibly and quite probably outside of my reach that I am unaware of; the ones I do have a sense of awareness however, imo, could only be the options that are open and thus what defines my free will. Then again, some may choose to define this as the illusion of free will and whether this or that is true, I cannot say and I'll never speak of.
I'm not sure I manage to convey what I mean. If it's still unclear, I'll sit down and think and try to share it differently but if it is not and you plainly just do not agree, then I would love to be picked to pieces.
and a tendency for an irritating brand of contrariness.
i'm agnostic, but i've learnt that belittling others for their spiritual beliefs makes you fat and grumpy.
I would love all 2000 pounds of your grumpy fat every day and every night.
What's there to prove? Look around you. There have been more atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion than anything else in the history of the human race.
only if you make me scream out the name of your deity.
Tell that to Scientific American.
There are several regions involved. No *one* god spot.
That's an opinion only until it's proven concretely. Based on logic steps, correct? Moving from hypothetical to theory to hard proof.
I disagree on the "why". That's not the only reason for believing in something higher than oneself. It may push people to assign "God" to what they themselves cannot explain but we're hardly living in times where schizophrenia is caused by goblins or "humors" anymore.
When I was living in rural Ireland, there was a mystical pall that hung over the place. It wasn't in my mind. The dead die but they don't leave.
In my own home in the States, I found the spot on the floor where my grandmother died even though I had never been told it was there. It was cold and a chill passed through me whenever I walked over it. I asked my mother and she confirmed it as the spot where my grandmother died years before I was born. I would press someone to explain that to me in scientific terms.
It's not the religion or the ideology. IT'S THE PEOPLE.
People want to believe in something higher than themselves because they're weak and can't handle the idea of being the arbiter of their own fate. Why were most people in the Soviet Union atheists even though all people share the desire to be part of something greater? Because instead of having the goal to pray to Jesus and go to heaven, they had to goal to work hard and contribute to the community. Everything was planned out for them in advance; they weren't in charge of their own path in life. The majority of people want security and want a cushion to protect them from the meaninglessness and arbitrariness of life. It's the minority that accepts the universe as it is and makes something out of it instead of living in delusion that make an impact in the world.
And the reason you "felt" ghosts was because, like Dawkins said, the human mind is very susceptible to delusion. That's it.
People want to believe in something higher than themselves because they're weak and can't handle the idea of being the arbiter of their own fate. Why were most people in the Soviet Union atheists even though all people share the desire to be part of something greater? Because instead of having the goal to pray to Jesus and go to heaven, they had to goal to work hard and contribute to the community. Everything was planned out for them in advance; they weren't in charge of their own path in life. The majority of people want security and want a cushion to protect them from the meaninglessness and arbitrariness of life. It's the minority that accepts the universe as it is and makes something out of it instead of living in delusion that make an impact in the world.
And the reason you "felt" ghosts was because, like Dawkins said, the human mind is very susceptible to delusion. That's it.
Well, one can make it sound nice: every joy you feel is a tiny touch of god; but it still baffles me that such an explanation should satisfy you.
O, I see. The crux remains that you have not become a christian but were raised a christian. You presuppose god, do you not? Or are you really saying that god has given you this second pair of glasses?
If so, was his earthly form that of a book; and if it was a book, why do you not believe in Hobbits as well?
Morality doesn't need religion. Do you think before Jesus, people were running around raping and skinning each other?
Morality is biologically ingrained into people to preserve the human race. That doesn't mean it has no logical basis, though. All living beings are irreconcilably interconnected, so one living being suffering causes all living beings to suffer. It would be logical, therefore, to minimize suffering in the world.
Okay. I can buy that explanation far better than the other.
(Although if you run into someone who actually knows their detailed history and/or archaeology, and throw in a textual critic or three who can chart inherent patterns of evolution with the OT, I think things will get really interesting.)
And the reason you "felt" ghosts was because, like Dawkins said, the human mind is very susceptible to delusion. That's it.
How can I form a delusion about something I knew nothing about?
How can I form a delusion about something I knew nothing about?
If Stalin wasn't considered a God, I'm sure Lenin was.
One does not break free from the need with a substitute, because it's just a replacement.
Define "girl"?
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.