WhoaitsZ

I believe in God/gods for multiple reasons.

mainly I believe because I live. I have defied science too many times. I've been on my deathbed five times, i've rolled off of a ramp onto my head with no injury, i've OD'd, i've suffocated, i've wrecked, i've done lots of impossible shit to believe I don't get some divine intervention time to time.

i believe in gods cuz I've seen spirits. mind you I've beaten painkillers, been on hundreds of medications and more. These were not hallucinations.

I have far too many links with people to believe we're just matter without a big picture. feeling things go very wrong and knowing who it is hundreds of miles away... it happens to me all the time.

and as far as God.... i see it in a light that terrifies most people.

i realize that I can think whatever I want and change nada. God can be a spoiling mom, neutrel or evil and I can't do a thing about it. God has the rulebook in hsi hand and he can damn well do as he likes.

this is where i differ. it scares me at times but I follow my heart. period. I believe in a God (Christ) that

1) knows we fuck up
2) doesn't expect perfection from flawed beings
3) is forgiving
4) He will help when possible, but will not live for you
5) He loves us. when we violate each other without just cause we sin.

if thjis isn't correct don't follow him. I will not support a cruel god without major reasoning. i will not back up bad things or habits.

so in a nutshell. i still believe. i gotta run, sorry for such shoddy writing!

prosequence

If you don't believe in God, and he doesn't let you into heaven. So what, you don't believe in him, right?
Like most laws here on Earth, you can't plead ignorance and expect to get away with stuff. God gave us freedom of choice as well as intelect to search out the truth and find him.
This of course is my opinion.

__________________
And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

dragon2fire

let me try to make myself clear


what if you live in place were there is no belif in god


read afracian tribe


but you live a good life


should you go to heaven


i mean you really are ignorant


acorrding to your bible those people go to hell


is this right i think not

GakFace

as far as I'm concerned, what the Tribes believed in is the same God we believe in.. they merely interpreted it differently. Look at the bible and how many different way it is interpreted. There is no "ONE" religion as we all have interpreted him a bit different.. Same guy.. he's just looked up with a lot of variety. Those Africans still go to heaven.

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

papermachesatan

Your interpretations of these events are completely subjective; All you know is that you've survived accidents. This does not equate to divine intervention.

Appeal to Personal Ancedote. Religous and spiritual hallucinations can be caused by something as simple as an electric alarm clock:Experiences of spiritual visitation and impregnation: potential induction by frequency-modulated transients from an adjacent clock.

chavos

I wouldn't say that.

He's talking about entrance in to heaven, and how he is the path therin. Many take this to indicate that in other folds there are those who are heeding the voice of the true shepherd, even if they don't know it.

There are other passages too, and the main idea drawn from them is that people are judged according to the law that is written upon their hearts. in which case, your example people would probably fare pretty well. many christians, even fairly hardline ones, beleive that people who have never heard the gospel are given a chance to hear it and accept it before judgement. personally, i don't believe in judgement as a single event, or reward/punishment as two eternally dichotomous states, but that's not really the point here.

ps...i wonder why people never choose white, upper class heathens for this sort of example. doesn't seem right that "african" is an appeal to pity, or alternately, that christianity is being set up to appear racist. meh.

GakFace

First off, you're speaking about Z here. This is a man who has gone through A LOT.. more than mere "accidents" Although what you say sounds valid, I simply cannot figure everything to happen to Z to be Accidents.

Ok, so its possible.. first off, I've seen many things too. I don't do drugs, I'm barely on any meds (allergy related), and I've seen things before I even took any meds. I've seen things before my belief in God was strong, and I sleep through alarms.. simply don't hear them.I've seen angels, I've seen Hell ( or at least somethin similiar), I've seen random spirits, I've even seen Deamons. It may be possible to trigger some things, but it isn't a reason for all of them.

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

GakFace

White Upper Class HAS heard of christianity, they are not secluded from the world, they have phones, and the net, and communication outside of their home. Thus, it didn't fit quite what Dragon was stating. He chose africans as there still are a few tribes that simply stay away from society at large. They have them and thats it. THIS is what he was going for.

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

wry1

Believe in Gods? Does it really matter?

By there very conventional definition, any "God" is, by default, possessing of abilities, powers, strengths and intelligence far in excess of that possessed by mortal man.

So they really wouldn't need my help or support, now would they?

I've always subscribed to the philosophy of being the best "me" possible, and in so doing helping my fellow man through my deeds.

FYI: Sophomore in college - after taking a decade-long haiatus from higher education.

papermachesatan

Your and other's inability to figure it out does not mean it had to be God. A wide vareity of unusual accidents does not equal out to God anymore than it does 'well a invisible intangiable pink elephant set him up'. If you want to believe that God's been kicking your ass then bringing you back from the brink of death, fine. Just realize that it's an irrational one unless you can bring out some evidence.


Hallucinations don't have to be caused by drugs. As mentioned in the article above, the electromagnetic anomolies caused by an alarm clock were sufficient to make someone see and feel things. Lots of little things can have impacts on the human mind. Seismic activies, etc. etc.

BTW, what does sleeping through alarms have to do with anything? Are you actually suggesting that you slept through your alarm clock and were late for work because of *supernatural activity*??????????

Neurotheology - the study of religous experiences on the brain.
linky 1 linky 2

Hallucinations.

Prince

I've no faith. I don't think I am any better or worse off because of that.

Having faith, blind faith, is to me about accepting something as true, as fact, without basis. If I could accept God as fact, if I could accept that a god exists to begin with, then maybe I might grow faith out of that.

The big problem with me and faith, religion, belief, whatever you want to call it, is that it seems ruined by the culture of religion. No specific religion, but the existence of religion. Each religion wants to describe and perceive divinity in their own, slightly unique way. Most of them have special, sacred books (written by man, of course) to back their claims up, and provide them with guidance and solace. Well, good for them.

I find myself having more faith in science, because it does not claim to be something that it isn't -- for the most part. Scientific articles do not claim to be God's word, in fact whenever new discoveries are made, old information and research is re-examined and at times discredited. This does not seem to happen to the Bible, for example. The Bible is not allowed to be touched, it cannot be discredited or seriously examined, because it is the word of God, and thus The Truth.

Well, that's all very exciting. But if something cannot be questioned, examined, even considered false if need be, merely because it is thought to be "the word of God", then as far as I can tell it has no credibility to begin with. I guess this is where blind faith would come in. But for me, it doesn't.

Yes, you can claim that of course the Bible can and should be examined, even questioned, and there are people out there who do this all the time. However... Herein lies the problem. Not only is Christianity such an old dog that it cannot be taught new tricks, but it is hard to examine and question material which has no reference, no practical credible background or research behind it to back it up. How can one begin to question and discredit such information that is provided with the assumption that, because it is the word of God, it does not need to be proven? That it requires no actual proof to back up the fairy tales? Because of the nature of the Bible, you can only question its content via philosophical means, not really with scientific measures.

Interestingly enough, both science and philosophy offer means to doubt, question, study and discredit, and thus grow. Nothing is considered absolute, anything can be discredited, any information can be updated when new discoveries are made. This is not true for religion.... Religion leaves no room for growth, unless it is within well-defined boundaries.

Perhaps religion has ruined faith for me. Perhaps science stepped in, when God failed to deliver. Either way, faith in God offers some people with easy answers for questions that they have been wondering about. When in doubt, turn to the Bible. God also offers them comfort, understanding and, in some ways, knowledge and even growth.

Science and philosophy provide me with all these things, and more. Blind faith fell short of doing so.

__________________
Who is John Galt?

GakFace

I just have gotton to know Z over TFP, and some of his recoveries just don't seem to be natural. They seem to be miracles.. which I might add is a term used by Doctors. Also God didn't send him to death. If you get sick, you get sick.. in his case he got something in his genes..but thats another story. God may have helped him live, but I don't think God purposely made him ill.


If you could, I would love to read about this person's Experiments in depth. Did he ever point out any "chills"? I'm just curious as to the details, and the subjects that he used and so on and so forth.

You mentioned some were triggered through alarm clocks, I was merely rooting out that that isn't a possibility for me, because I"m still sleeping when they go off.



"This does not explain all religious experience by any means."
This is from the Secondly Linky. This is all I was trying to point out. What you say may be true, but what I say also has a possiblity of being true. I was in no way trying to say you were wrong

It's late, I'm tired, I'll try to reply back to this in the next coupla days. But one more thing to note.
Most religious people believe that the human body has a soul, many of them will say how the soul and the mind are very much related.. the mind is connected to the brain, and the brains helps produce the spiritual experiences.. which it is "made to do.. (The brain is set up in such a way as to have spiritual experiences and religious experiences," ) So this quote was used to "disprove" God, where as I just used it to help prove...

I'm not asking to change your mind, but I am asking you to look at the possiblity.

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

Mantus

GakFace,

I don’t think that you are listening to papermachesatan. He is saying that miracles, angels, souls, the afterlife, a pot of tea, etc, do not prove god. Mentioning more random crap will not make your point any more clear nor disprove his.

There are many flaw in proving god by association with phenomenon (besides the obvious one that no link can be proven), one of them is that it is rather inconsistent. Z may have gotten sick and recovered many times. Other people will get sick, stay sick for years and die a painful death. So if the case of Z proved a god then the case of many other sick people disproved god.

Then there is this whole tendency of the religion crowd to be awfully selective without any explanation whatsoever. For example:
If god does exist, then god obviously made Z ill and then cured him. After all who else is going to make him ill? Frankly that seems a bit cruel to me, like torturing an ant. But I digress.

This may surprise you but most Atheists and Agnostics believe they have a soul as well. I for example have a whole theory on the matter. I believe that the unification of the mind, body and the world creates a sprit; the spirit becomes a soul after our death. Which indicates that I also believe in an afterlife. I am rather fond of the teachings of Jesus and have always tried to embrace the Golden Rule. Would it also surprise you that I find angels more likely then god? After all many people report seeing angels. Even though they may be hallucinations that a hell of allot more evidence then we got on god so far.

So you see, to me god is not a necessity for any of those things to exist. They make just as much sense to me with god’s absence.

papermachesatan

It's not an a scientific term. A miracle, by definition is a an [extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs Science does not deal with the supernatural as a miracle would indicate. Even more so, doctors don't have to be good scientists or follow the scienitifc method; Doctors in the ER, etc. = applied science.

Additionally, even though many scientists hold religious beliefs, honest ones won't try to pass them off as valid scientific theories though.

Optimisim, enviorment, etc. can all play signficant roles on recovery. But we'll say, for the sake the discussion, that the recoveries were unusual. That doesn't still doesn't mean that God did it. Please provide evidence of God's involvement. I don't understand why you keep insisting that your lack of knowledge on what happened means that God did it.

I recieved the article via someone else so I'm not sure how to find it. I would google, "neurotheology", "Laurentian University", "Dr Persinger"


Of course neurotheology doesn't explain everything. It doesn't try to..

The Burdeon of Proof of divine interventions and God still remains on you.

Cart before horse. The brain just happens to be suscepitible to outside natural interference which can induce hallucinations, etc. that are interpreted as religious experiences.

And about souls.. if the soul and the mind were very much related, why does a persons personality and mental capabilties change when one side of the brain is damaged?? And more so, why does God need an elaborate set-up or back channels to reach us through?

There you go again, jumping to conclusions.

The brain is shown to be susceptible to outside natural interference which can account for 'religious experiences' = GOD???? wtf



I'm just as open to the possibility as the next guy. But I need proof.

chavos

Sadly, you are correct about many of those things, if by Christianity you are purely referencing the conservative strain which is most well known in the US. I would thouroughly disagree if you were attempting to characterize the faith as a whole.

The bible, first and foremost, to me is about relationship. Questioning, criticizing, curious, engaging, experimenting, relationship.

One of my pastors has a saying about that a Christian should treat the bible like a farmer handles a chicken. Carefully, but with a willingness to grab it and dig in. Its a funny way of saying it, but i think it captures the point. Literalism kills the bible...and i'm not the only Christian to think so.

Anyhow, all i ask is that Christianity doesn't get portrayed soley as a conservative endevour. there is a sizable, vocal, and intellectually developed movement that is outside and against fundamentalism.

GakFace

First I want to point out that I'm not here to disprove a thing. I was merely trying to point out that God is a possibility, and nothing more.

When I said that the quote was to disprove God, I did not say YOU used it to disprove God, I had read the article and that is where I had gotton it from.

Also why would it be that God makes people sick? "Shit happens." And yes that could be just as plausable for someone's recovery, but there is also the possibility that God was there too.

Many people agree that its kind of hard to prove god exists and that its just as hard to prove the opposite.

If I offended any of you, I am truely sorry for this. I in no way meant to disprove a thing. Nor did I try to say God is the only way, or that you were wrong. I'm not here to prove a thing, this is why I'm not bringing hard cold truths with me.

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

papermachesatan

Hey, I wasn't offended.. My point is just that while God is a possibility, so is an invisible, intangiable, physics defying pink elephant. And while its okay to believe in God or the Devine Pink Elephant, you're just going to have to realize that it's an irrational one.

GakFace

Its also possible that aliens have tricked us for thousands of years... Its possible that I am but a character is someone's reoccuring dreams. Its all possible. But just as you think my belief in God is irrational... I think you not believing in God is just as irrational. As people will agree the proof is hard to prove no matter which direction you go. So If to believe is Irrational, and to not believe is Irrational... what IS rational?

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

Mantus

GakFace,

Not offended, this is a philosophy forum after all so one must expect arguments. I hope that I was did not come off as hostile; if I did I give my sincere apologies.

On to the discussion at hand,

One should not replace one’s beliefs with other beliefs. One should accept that their knowledge is limited. We have no knowledge of how reality was conceived or of its purpose. There are possibilities, but one must acknowledge them as theories, not truths.

[edit]...oh i did not see that your new threads. I should continue this discusion in them.[/edit]

Cheers.

GakFace

I used to use the word 'Debate' & 'Argument' interchangably, BUT.. there is a difference between the two.

I expect debates, yes. Me & Mephisto have have some good ones. Arguements I do not expect. I also have no intentions of getting anyone angry, I thought that I might have so I figured before letting people brew some anger to me, that I would apologize. I'd rather have a civil debate with people I can call friends, and at the very least respect, rather than get into an arguement, those never end up good.
---------------------------
As to your post.. "There are possibilities, but one must acknowledge them as theories, not truths." I completely agree with ya. I can completely accept the fact that I believe in a Fluke, that I've been tricked by aliens, or that I'm only the figment of someone's imagination. But I BELIEVE that God does exist. All are possible, there's just one I follow more closely too.

I love looking at all the possiblities out there.. with everything. It makes life that much more interesting.

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

papermachesatan

But unlikely and unsupportable. Thus holding such to be true is irrational.


What's irrational about refusing to hold something that doesn't have any real evidence to be true?


Proof of the Negative is a logical fallacy; it's virtually impossible to disprove that something does not exist. And, I don't have to disprove anything. I'm not claiming that God exists. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

So, where's your proof?

Justify how not believing in something without supporting evidence is irrational.

GakFace

Actually, as many people will say, we won't really KNOW until we die right? If thats the case any of these ideas are just as possible as the next. Some sound weird, but they are still entirely possible. And this being a Philosophy forum, I figured those two examples would be accepted as they are both fitting in the philosophy category.

Hmm.. I still believe that God exists.. and I stated me reasons in my first post... Can I use your quote back?


You are claiming that God does not exist, this is your claim. So I do believe a burden lies on you.

I already know that I cannot make someone believe in God. I have already had debates with God vs. No God. Luckily I did it with friends, so that things wouldn't get out of hand. It lands in standstill everytime. And you know what it ends up coming down to? Faith. Faith is not something you can force upon someone.. its personal. From that No matter what I say, you won't believe because of me. I'm not going to force you either. Any of this would only push us apart. I only came in this thread origially to point out something that I saw and disliked. As for what I'm here to say. I'm here to say God is a possiblity.. no more, no less.

Wait.. so you're telling me my belief in God is irrational, but your BELIEF.. which you refuse to give any evidence for.. is rational?

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

papermachesatan

We won't know until we die, correct. So explain to me why I should believe in it while there is no credible evidence supporting such a belief.


And which of your reasons = credible evidence??

*SIGH*. Do you not understand how the burden of proof works? *Only positive claims can be evaluated. The default assumption is that nothing except for yourself exists (your existance is an a priori)* I have made no claims. You claim that there is a god. I challenged this claim. You must provide evidence that there is a God.

Our debate is out-of-hand?

Concession accepted. Faith in something which there is no proof is as irrational as me saying "I have faith that 2 + 2 = 6."

I'm here for a similiar purpose: I just want to say that an invisibile, intangiable, physics defying purple elephant is a possibility with as much credibility as your God.


Its impossible for me to prove that he doesn't exist. Proof of the Negative and Burden of Proof fallacies.

GakFace

Not why I'm here. When it comes to the belief in God, I only point out the possibility. If you don't want to examine the possibility, I don't see how anything that I say will change your mind.


I follow spiritualness as well, you do not. I think what we see as credible changes because of this. Again why I don't like to go into deep detail.

yeah, I figured I ended up making it sound like that. I never came in here making the claim that God exists, I made the claim that he has the possiblity of existing.


I personally have had the debates of God Vs. No God.. and I hate to do them, and so I am saying I don't want to get it out of hand. I simply don't like them, so I'm not going to do it.

well technically 2+2+ could = 6, if we agreed that 2 was actually what we would put for 3.... I am not "conceding," Its that that is how they would come down. It wasn't.. my last retort was faith, and without it I would lose... it would be... Standstill, then I'd still say Faith. Whats the problem? A religious faith just doesn't turn into anything someone who isn't religious.. So even though to someone that believes might think the faith issue would turn the table.. it doesn't make sense to the otherside. It stays a standstill.

When did I say different? I can just as easily understand why people say God doesn't exist. To me they all have a plausability.. but I personally take one more to hear than the others.

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

chavos

Amen.

Mantus

Oh guys this is getting silly, I promised myself that I would not post here for a while but I feel that I should.

By acknowledging this you are also acknowledging the possibility of god not existing. The statement works both ways. If god is a possibility then it is also possible that god does not exist. So there is a 50% chance of god not existing without even discussing any properties of god. As properties are added the chance of any particular concept of god being correct becomes less and less likely to be true.

But who cares about odds. What’s important is what you do with the concept of god, whose existence you have hope in.

Ethics, morality, creation, the nature of the universe, existence, angels, souls, afterlife, luck, fate, we can discus all of these concepts with or without a god. Our model of the universe works just as well without a god so I must ask the ask:

What makes you choose god as the final answer? Why do you choose to believe in a god?

chavos

Your numbers are completely specious. May or may not exist does not lead to the logical conclusion of 50/50 probablity of existance.

Its not about the numbers. Open yourself the possibilities, ask yourself the questions, live in to that search, and find an answer for yourself. Already done so? Great. I respect your answer and self-examination. Think you might return the favor?

Mantus

Of course it doesn’t.
I know, that’s what I said.
Indeed, either god exists or god doesn’t.
I have no answer. I am searching for answers. Since the theists have answers I would like to know how they got them.

chavos

Yes. So: Open yourself to possibilities, live in to the search for an answer, and find either an answer or a journey that you feel is right.

That will require listening. And you may not like what you hear.

I don't mean to be an ass...but the why of beleif has been documented in this thread and others many, many, many times from many perspectives. Perhaps i am cynical, but I have yet to see such an statement simply respected for what it is.

papermachesatan

I've examined the possibilty. Don't forget that I, at one point, believed in God. I eventually disgarded the possibility as truth when it became clear that God has about as much credibility as the previously mentioned pink elephant.


Occam's Razor eliminates the need for the spirtual component. Chance and Coincidence explain events far better than 'supernatural, invisible, physic's defying, omnipotent intervention.'

God is a possibility right along there with the pink elephant. I do not dispute the possibility. I just challenge the notion that faith in something without any supporting evidence at all is a rational thing.



We'd be deluding ourselves into believing that 2 was really 3. If 2 = 3, then 2 is not 2.

He's a possibility and that's all he's got going for him other than your desperate desire for his existance. That does make the belief or faith in him rational.

chavos

desparate desire? with what rational means do you read gak's mind? extrasensory perception? magic? divine intervention? you "win" only to the exent that you use emotionally loaded language to put words in someone's mouth. simply, there is a dispute on evidence. screaming that you're right, and using smartass phrases like "concession accepted" does not in fact make it an accepted fact that you are correct. perhaps i will regret my candor here, but i think it needed to be said.

papermachesatan

style over substance. care to actually address my arguments instead of complaining about which adjectives, etc. I use?

God is a logically useless and unnecessary part of any theory to explain phenomena, etc. Anything that is rational can be logically justified.

chavos

this isn't a style question. putting words in someone's mouth: a logical fallacy.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

using emotionally loaded terms: a logical fallacy. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pl.htm

Unless God has granted you a miraculous insight in to Gakface's brain, your arguement ends in purely fictive and prejudicial material.

papermachesatan

You are correct; I do not know that he has faith out of desperate desire.. He could have faith due to many things besides a desire: fear of the unknown, delusions, ignorance, being manipulated...

Congratulations on your successful nitpick.

chavos

a challenge to the spirit in which you conduct your arguements is not about nitpicking. you're being quite illogical about this...and it hurts the quality of the discussion. using appeal to emotion, and assuming facts not in evidence is not a rationally sound means to prove a thesis.

papermachesatan

*sigh*

I've conceeded that claiming he has faith out of desperate desire for God's existance does not take into account a number of reasons such as fear of the unknown, delusions, ignorance, being manipulated, etc. It was erroneous for me to state that his faith is based on a desperate desire.

Now, would you care to address the rest of my argument or are you finished?

filtherton

All this talk and we still can't get beyond the age old:

Person1: I believe in god.

Person2: You can't prove god exists.

Person1: I know i can't prove it in any way that you can appreciate, but i know it in my heart.

Person2: You can't prove god exists.

Person1: I know, but i still have faith in the existence of god.

Person 2: You can't prove god exists.

I have removed all of the thinly veiled "my ideology is better than yours" insinuations for your reading convenience.

papermachesatan

I don't think that's a fair assessment and overly simplifies the last two 'positions'.

Person1: I believe in god.

Person2: You can't prove god exists.

Person1: I know i can't prove it in any way that you can appreciate, but i know it in my heart.

Person2: Faith is irrational. Believing, in your heart, that 2+2=6 does not make it true.

*third exchange unneeded.*
..

Believe if you want but recognize that God is as an irrational method for describing the unknown as it was 150 years ago.

chavos

If you can't be civil...then you can't expect to be spoken to. I'm sorry, but i'll take this as a statement that you have no desire to discuss things maturely.

filtherton

No, actually i think it is accurate. What person two is saying in your example really boils down to "you can't prove god exists." You can use whatever clever little phrase you want, but what you are saying is the same. You haven't disproven anything. Just made all the readers aware of the fact that you misunderstand the extent to which faith, however irrational, permeates everything that we do as human beings.

As for faith, it takes a certain amout of effort to ignore the fact that if not for everyday plain old faith, life would be very different. Do you have faith in your physician? Do you have faith that the person stopped at the red light isn't going to just peel out and hit you as you cross the street? Faith, however irrational, is the grease of life. Without it you'd never get out of bed in the morning. Do you know that the sun is for sure going to come up tomorrow? If you say yes, than you are a liar. Do you know that your parents, or girlfriend, or boyfriend, loves you? How can you be sure? I bet you act as though they do love you. Because you have faith.



You'll never find a scientific way to describe what belief in god and the afterlife describes. And you'll never win an argument about what happens when you die if the only tool in your shed is rationality. Shit, theres enough irrationality going on under the guise of culture and economics in the living world. Just because something is irrational doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

Everything you have said is just a variation of, "Well, you can't prove it" because that is all you have.