So the fact that many people find happiness in believing in heaven is itself proof that heaven exists??
C'mon, don't hide behind these ET assumed names. This is Dr. Phil talking isn't it? C'mon, you can be honest. I watch your show all the time. I'm a big fan. Thanks for chiming in on our discussion. I didn't recognize you at first, but you were bound to give it away sooner or later. Is it okay if I PM you about some therapy on diet and discipline (your favorite subject). I just can't stick to my diet, no matter how much I watch your show. Thanks again, and best wishes Doc!
"Get a clue 777. If faith DID work for me, it still would not prove that god exists. I just would have an invisible friend like YOU do! LMAOOOO" Successful theists have no need to prove God exists any more than a man who loves his wife has a need to prove that to anyone else. Where is it written that proof of God need necessarily conform to the standards of proof of that are limited to the senses and intellect? That would preclude that God is necessarily physical and must necessarily conform to our ideas of what ultimate logic and reality are. In any relationship, love and closeness flow through the medium of faith and trust....it is a heart to heart relationship. Say our beloved steps on our toe. We cry out in pain. Our beloved says "I am sorry, it was an accident, I didn't mean to harm you." How do we know our beloved is truly sorry? How do we know with a mathematical certainty? There is no external proof, yet when we trust, love, and forgive the relationship deepens and grows stronger. Our heart stays open to our beloved. In the same way, the theist forms a relationship with God via love and trust, the practice and discipline of faith. That you failed in faith means that when you had a choice either to trust in God, or trust your own limited intellect, you made a choice to rely on your own limited intellect and reject faith in God. You made a decision that hardened your heart. You could have doubted the doubt, you could have kept your heart open, and if you had, you would be a sucessful theist rather than the obviously bitter atheist you have become.
I try to avoid lowering myself to the above level, but I'm tired of seeing it so much, so here goes: You AGrogue Trader were born an atheist. But you started comprehending death when you were a tot and became so scared you couldn't sleep. So you had to have something that made you feel better, and you started clutching onto these tales of heaven, santa and afterlife. Of course, you outgrew the santa, but you never recovered from your failed atheism. So you must get over the preoccupation with death and the fear it inspired such that it caused you to pee in front of the other children at times. These issues stemming from your failed atheism still remain with you today, but you can overcome them!
I disagree. People are born agnostic, with no knowledge of God. There is a difference beweeen an agnostic and an atheist. People are also born with no knowledge of the English language. People are also born with no knowledge of many of the experiences they will have in life. If people are open they can learn, if they are closed minded they will not learn. If their hearts are closed, they will not experience love. If someone's heart is hardened to God, they will not experience that love either.
sure, you can argue that all religion is SUPPOSED to be peaceful and loving, but almost every religion is one-minded. it has to be one way or else. anything that humans will fight to the death over is evil in my book. so, pretty much every religion is evil. you don't see monkeys, dolphins, or other species killing each other do you? what would you think would happen if they started imposing their own twisted beliefs on each other? humans are a fascinating distaster.
Description of Poisoning the Well This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form: Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false. This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor. You frequently label theists as "delusional" and attempt to belittle them. These attacks are of a personal nature, and unnecessary as relates to the arguments at hand. Use of ridicule and verbal abuse is a form of trying to discredit a person, and thus a form of poisoning the well. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
There is only one religion TODAY where a sizeable portion of its population insists (or sympathizes with those who do) that everyone must convert to their religion or die, and that all governments should be ruled by their religious doctrine. That is of course Islam. Also, even in hisory there were religions that were tolerant.