Indeed. But what are the facts? You, with all respect, are a beginning philosopher, this means in search for the truth. I personally, found the truth because it was revealed to me. You will contradict this wholeheartedly, but that about summarizes our whole conversation. I say I know the truth and the only truth. You don't believe that, yet you don't have the answers, things only raise more questions (lots of them to be solved by the Heidelberg Cathechism). This doesn't make me any better than you, mind, because all humans are equal and it can also happen to you, no matter how unthinkable that seems to you.

OK, I got sidetracked too, but we have both our own "facts", and they will not change for me. Our conversation goes wrong because we look so differently at things. This is why I said that in a normal conversation, it will be a lot more easier. But since we don't exactly live next door, it's not very likely to happen.

Facts are objective. You can't argue about facts. It would be like this: It's three o'clock - no it isn't

Rational conversation demands facts and even more justification of your arguments.
You don't need to correct an answer as long as you know it's false. Even if I can't say what is the truth I can always what it isn't. Just because I can't deny an undefined panteistic God I can always say that at least God is not as you see it.


now thats once again resorting in authority which is a bad argument. I tried to keep myself from doing it throught the conversation but if you want I can name dozens of books that point out problems of Christianity.


What I am trying to do here is not change what you believe in but to change WHY you belive in whatever you do believe in. Your current reasons are very unrational but it's not impossible to counter my arguments. You just need to think.

Yes I know. But there are things I consider facts, which you deny.


For me, it's justifiable. The cathechism is an explanations of what the Bible says, which is an authority indeed.


My reasons may seem unrational, yet they are not. A few posts ago, you accused me of lacking other people's point of view. Can you try to see things my my perspective?

And thinking about what I believe make me happy, genuinely and undescribably happy. So I don't know if I "need to think", but I like thinking.

I'm not reading this all. Once I started discussing it and I'm pretty much surprised how long I managed to stick to it. Well, than the posts became enormously long.
So, now I'm not gonna read it all, but -Mayhem-, one thing: I know a lot about religion, Bible, God and so. I believe in him. I'm a Christian. But let me tell you: it's not only you, who explain everything in a scientific way, right, smart and using your brain instead of believing in something blindly. No, I don't follow anything blindly and with no reason or explanation. I'm trying to prove these beliefs with my own mind in a logic way, and it often goes pretty well. My theories don't need always to be based on something someone else once said, even not the Bible. Most of them are directly from my own mind.

I have been waiting for a few days to give my response becaus ethis time there was something really big in my mind. I realized something very important concerning this conversation.
First I will give a few comments on you latest posts and then I will continue to new fields of discussion.


Now if they are objective facts they should fill quite a lot of requirements which they don't.


Why? Authorities are something that are trusted with no real reason to do so. You could just as well believe in a fairytale and without proofs you don't have any ways of backing up your theories.


And once again comes the "yes it is" "no it isn't" objection.


Ignoring reasoning does seem quite difficult to understand but from a psychological viewpoint...


So you think being happy is better than being right?


What can be considered "a lot" ?
I would say I know many people who indeed have given a thought to it but have taken the opposite alternative or even completely different (Spinoza )


I am not denying that. The problem is when these two collide and whe the religion then tries to take over. Thats the biggest untheoretical problem with it these days. Anything funded by the discovery foundation can be considered garbage.


One can always think of ways to defend ones dear beliefs but it may lead to nonsense. Think of Leibniz. He is the one who invented Calculus and the Antiderivative. Yet he died thinking that pain and injury don't have anything in common but are brought together by chance.


And thats something you can be proud of. The biggest problem with religions is that they are denying the chance someone in the past has made a mistake. They are counting on everything they have heard about certain things to be true. This is not the case with all relgions but this way of thinking has been known for a thousand year among philosophers as Coherentic theory of truth.

But now:
I will open up a new thread for this discovery of mine. I realized I think of the religions in the same way as I think of Pseudoscience. This should also lighten up the mood a bit and I believe we can get some good discussion going.
If you have an idea on how to improve our way of discuusion (for example with a chat) go ahead and throw in a suggestion of a chat we can use and a time (Only browser based chats please)

Religion and science don't always have to collide. Only the ones who follow one or another blindly think it does. You just have to find something "in between" that can explain both.

I personally think that all atheist should be excecuted I've escaped the prison after 17 years to kill a jewish-atheist familly who betrayed me, but that doesn't really matter, only thing that matters is that all are the same, for example the familly i killed the first, ones whose baby son i've raped so hard he said hello to devil himself, they turned in my best friend! THEY ARE ALL TRAITORS! TERMIATE ALL SONS OF BITCHES! HF ROCKS!

HHaahaahahahahahaha dude, wtf? xD

Please never come back.

What the hell...? Guys, should I warn this guy here (never seen them on forum before anyway)?