---

I'm not angry. Simply disappointed that you prefer to ignore what I'm trying to say (my fault, your fault... I don't know and at this point I guess I don't care). Our little discussion stared out, I believe on my part, to explain, in my opinion, why God doesn't step up and prove He exists. You've moved away from that and gone back to criticisms of religion and how I word my posts (atheists don't have beliefs). I don't believe I can overcome that handicap. What else is there to say?

---

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 6:37 pm on July 18, 2008

---

I'm not angry. Simply disappointed that you prefer to ignore what I'm trying to say (my fault, your fault... I don't know and at this point I guess I don't care). Our little discussion stared out, I believe on my part, to explain, in my opinion, why God doesn't step up and prove He exists. You've moved away from that and gone back to criticisms of religion and how I word my posts (atheists don't have beliefs). I don't believe I can overcome that handicap. What else is there to say?

---

How about going along with it?

---

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 11:32 pm on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 6:37 pm on July 18, 2008

---

I'm not angry. Simply disappointed that you prefer to ignore what I'm trying to say (my fault, your fault... I don't know and at this point I guess I don't care). Our little discussion stared out, I believe on my part, to explain, in my opinion, why God doesn't step up and prove He exists. You've moved away from that and gone back to criticisms of religion and how I word my posts (atheists don't have beliefs). I don't believe I can overcome that handicap. What else is there to say?

---

 
 How about going along with it?

---

Going along with what?

---

With my deviating texts.

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:47 pm on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 2:05 pm on July 18, 2008

---

What's wrong with having a fact instead of faith?  
  Isn't it better to know for sure that what you're doing, based on that data, is going to lead you to the best conclusion possible?  
  Why keep it all hazy? Doesn't that make a choice more difficult?  
  Wouldn't free will be better applied and practiced if we had ALL the facts? Why Choice based on scriptures and faith, instead of fact and sound evidence?  
  Why is the 'leap' important anyway?

---

You seem to be having a problem tying my responses together.  

 Having a knowledge of God as fact (which is what you are advocating) would most likely limit or eliminate free will and the choice to believe or not. Whether that be by knowledge or by decree. All governments would also be religious because of this knowledge. All laws in all countries would be based on this knowledge. And this is what you are wishing for when you want the evidence of God's existence to be obvious.  

 Best case scenario for any who refuse to accept God's existence would be similar to how 'Creationists' are treated in today's world. Worst case would be how some people are treated in the Middle East for not being 100% Muslim.

---

Are you in a way saying that if god was real our world would decline in its achievements and quality of life? I mean...it would basically stagnate progress. Think about it! We'd have to start worshipping this god and spending our time living in a cosmic North Korea. It's not a good view at all if what more than 40% of America believes in, was actually true. And yet they do, and can't realise how lucky hey are that it's not.
And the views you offer are by no means desirable, as you rightly acknowledge.
Is that the reason you're, in a way, pleased that there's no evidence?
Aren't you pleased that you are free to live in a society that doesn't show its reverence for god on a massive visible scale? Where the people who do care about that sort of thing are usually seen as trouble makers and deluded anti-progressivists, like stopping stem cell research and the spread of contraception and wanting to put both Evolution and Intelligent Design in Science classes? Not to mention that it allows ignorance and delusion to run amok in the streets, which opens even more floodgates for more quackery like New Age mysticism and "alternative" medicine.
Aren't you happy to see that, when people don't bother with god or a holy book, things just seem more peaceful and worked out?

With that point of view, I ask what benefit is there for a society, to have millennial religion in its midst?

---

Am I pleased with the way a lot of societies treat the idea of God? No. Am I happy with extremists on either end of the spectrum? No. But I am satisfied to be living in a world where the existence of God cannot be proven either true or false.

I'm not sure what world you're looking at that is all happy and peaceful and things just 'work out' when people don't bother with god or a holy book.

So you believe that it would be more beneficial for society not to have anyone 'in its midst' with differing points of view? You think you're only advocating the dropping of religious beliefs, but in making that statement I don't think you're looking at the fact that any strongly held points of view can be used as a point of contention between members of that society. Do we keep beating down what those who disagree with us believe until everyone believes the same things and there is no disagreements and we are all on the same page, a totally homogeneous world?

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Pectus Pectoris Memor

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 4:33 pm on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:47 pm on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 2:05 pm on July 18, 2008

---

What's wrong with having a fact instead of faith?  
  Isn't it better to know for sure that what you're doing, based on that data, is going to lead you to the best conclusion possible?  
  Why keep it all hazy? Doesn't that make a choice more difficult?  
  Wouldn't free will be better applied and practiced if we had ALL the facts? Why Choice based on scriptures and faith, instead of fact and sound evidence?  
  Why is the 'leap' important anyway?

---

You seem to be having a problem tying my responses together.  

  Having a knowledge of God as fact (which is what you are advocating) would most likely limit or eliminate free will and the choice to believe or not. Whether that be by knowledge or by decree. All governments would also be religious because of this knowledge. All laws in all countries would be based on this knowledge. And this is what you are wishing for when you want the evidence of God's existence to be obvious.  

  Best case scenario for any who refuse to accept God's existence would be similar to how 'Creationists' are treated in today's world. Worst case would be how some people are treated in the Middle East for not being 100% Muslim.

---

 

 Are you in a way saying that if god was real our world would decline in its achievements and quality of life? I mean...it would basically stagnate progress. Think about it! We'd have to start worshipping this god and spending our time living in a cosmic North Korea. It's not a good view at all if what more than 40% of America believes in, was actually true. And yet they do, and can't realise how lucky hey are that it's not.  
 And the views you offer are by no means desirable, as you rightly acknowledge.  
 Is that the reason you're, in a way, pleased that there's no evidence?  
 Aren't you pleased that you are free to live in a society that doesn't show its reverence for god on a massive visible scale? Where the people who do care about that sort of thing are usually seen as trouble makers and deluded anti-progressivists, like stopping stem cell research and the spread of contraception and wanting to put both Evolution and Intelligent Design in Science classes? Not to mention that it allows ignorance and delusion to run amok in the streets, which opens even more floodgates for more quackery like New Age mysticism and "alternative" medicine.  
 Aren't you happy to see that, when people don't bother with god or a holy book, things just seem more peaceful and worked out?  

 With that point of view, I ask what benefit is there for a society, to have millennial religion in its midst?

---

There is evidence, just not scientific evidence. That you can't see it is more because you won't than because it isn't there. You have placed your faith in science and still you tell me that I shouldn't have faith? Why can't I believe what I want when you feel so free to believe what you want?  

Am I pleased with the way a lot of societies treat the idea of God? No. Am I happy with extremists on either end of the spectrum? No. But I am satisfied to be living in a world where the existence of God cannot be proven either true or false.  

I'm not sure what world you're looking at that is all happy and peaceful and things just 'work out' when people don't bother with god or a holy book.  

So you believe that it would be more beneficial for society not to have anyone 'in its midst' with differing points of view? You think you're only advocating the dropping of religious beliefs, but in making that statement I don't think you're looking at the fact that any strongly held points of view can be used as a point of contention between members of that society. Do we keep beating down what those who disagree with us believe until everyone believes the same things and there is no disagreements and we are all on the same page, a totally homogeneous world?

---

AWWW, you actually bothered!!!

I did read it, I'm just not in the mood to respond now.
There's stuff I disagree with obviously.