Why should the world not unite? Your arguments

I agree totally u and i make decisions with our intellect. The problem is most of humanity make decisions with thier emotions and only use thier intellect to make up reasons (tru or false it doesn't matter) to justify thier choices. We should be Kings of the world it would be a beautiful more wonderful place to be but no Donald trump and Vladimir putin etc rule the world its just how it is. I have no idea how this could possibly ever change, do you any ideas of how to actually implement the improvement of our planet earth?

I'm inspired by your post and I have a great idea for u to explore. Putin and trump etc r extroverts they love fame fortune and the spotlight. Introverts make the best leaders they don't care about any of that they get stuck in and get the job done and make earth a better place. How can we make introverts rule the world?

Icanbeatthis wrote:I agree totally u and i make decisions with our intellect. The problem is most of humanity make decisions with thier emotions and only use thier intellect to make up reasons (tru or false it doesn't matter) to justify thier choices. We should be Kings of the world it would be a beautiful more wonderful place to be but no Donald trump and Vladimir putin etc rule the world its just how it is. I have no idea how this could possibly ever change, do you any ideas of how to actually implement the improvement of our planet earth?

You are talking meaningless words. Thats how my friends would describe you. Or another would say - what are you smoking?

But I give much respect to you because of this thinking. I would like to drink beer with you maybe on weekends and discuss things like this. People like you are changing the world. World does not have to be a shitty place forever. It is changing slowly but that is because there are some people who care about it. Others think that it is not possible to do anything. But if everyhign what has been done so far was impossible, then how world have advanced? Like some time ago people said earth is flat and you are dumb if you think otherwise. f***ing bastards. Recently I read on linked in how drones could help fight fire and resque people from tall buildings. And then full of haters comments. Yes, maybe that will not work, but at least need to generate ideas and try. f***ing Edison or whoever invented the bulb also maybe was idiot because he tried and did not succed long time we know all how it ended.

Elon Musk now does crazy things and again full of haters.Of course, he maybe will not suceed, but maybe he will. And then tesla stock will go to the moon, leanving those haters behind and without money. Maybe it will not succeed. But what is the chance to make world better - by trying and failing or not trying anything?

Now about psychiatry and religion. On my local station there is a radion show where priest and psychologist talk about same topics, and they give their perspectives.

I myself so far am not sure if God exists because lot of signs that that it does not. Unless I do not see someting like those who thought earth is flat did not have a technology to see that earth is round. So I am wainting for a technology to prove that God exists or completely negates its existance, and will tell whole world to stop believeing in what does not exist. Probably will not see such technology in my life , sadly.

But if thinking about countries uniting, not psychiary and relitgion. I was thinking, yes this might be good. But I have read some arguments against it. And there iit is: imagine world unites and there is a goverment who you do not like and you cannot change like for example in china or north korea. Now - you can choose where to live from about 200 countries in the world where you like. Unless you are from like north korea where you cannot even leave the country easily.
That motivates governments more to make country be attractive to live, otherwise everyone will leave.

But one thing is not honest - the earth resources. Like if there is for example oil, some government with army does not care if anyone lives in that are. They just can take the oil and make money.

Hamming wrote:World does not have to be a shitty place forever.

What world are you talking about, the world of nature or the world of people, cities and wars?

The world I live in is not "a shitty place" and never has been. There is no need for the planet to be changed in any way. Goodness and evil are only in people's minds, and in every minute we all have the power to change our minds.

I am wainting for a technology to prove that God exists or completely negates its existance, and will tell whole world to stop believeing in what does not exist. Probably will not see such technology in my life , sadly.

Read The God Delusion or anything else by Richard Dawkins.

It's impossible to prove a negative. It will never be proved to you or anyone else that there is no god, just as no one can prove there isn't a shop selling ice-creams on Pluto.

It's up to religion to prove there is a god, and religion has failed to do so. People of all religious persuasions will say they have "personal experience of God". If they pray, and the dying relative recovers, that's enough "evidence" for those who want to believe. If they pray and the relative dies anyway, they say God had a better idea.

There is either no God, or many gods -- one for everybody who believes, because it's obvious people disagree as to what God is or does. God is a product of the imagination, based on early fear-mongering (you'll go to hell if you don't do what God wants) plus an attempt by the earliest humans to understand how we got here.

Dawkins' books will explain to you exactly how we got here, with no need for a creator god. Along the way he will mention how much trouble and pain is caused by religion, personally as well as between people of differing faiths. When you've understood Dawkins' scientific facts, you'll be able to join him in telling the "whole world to stop believing in what does not exist".

It's an insult to the majority of humans to suggest we need a set of rules (such as the ten commandments) to tell us how to behave. We all know it's wrong to hurt other people, and many people now understand it's also wrong to hurt animals or keep them in cages.

Here is one of your close cousins: https://www.facebook.com/amalcolm/video ... 851434826/

Is it right to keep our relatives like this in cages with concrete floors and glass walls?

What world are you talking about, the world of nature or the world of people, cities and wars?

All of this. Nature becomes poluted with chemicals. There are assholes people who hurt other people. They live in cities and in villages - everywhere. Wars happen, people die, suffer, lot of money wasted which could be used for better things.

Read The God Delusion or anything else by Richard Dawkins.

Sounds interesting, but not sure if its worth the time. It is easy to say arguments whjy God does not exist. I can tell them even without reading. Ok, it is only not easy to tell them to people who strongly believe that it exists, so far I had no success

Read on wikipedia: "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"

I would like to listen audio book if I could get free. Because I have more important books to read and I it so slowly.

Oh it is on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8xVMCB4plQ maybe should really listen

It will never be proved to you or anyone else that there is no god, just as no one can prove there isn't a shop selling ice-creams on Pluto.

ok, maybe enough logical arguments so that most of the people agree. And stop telling to people that it exists at leats. Especially kids who are easily manipulated. When I was kid , I had no doubts it exists. I though long time that one day I should start regulartly go to church. But it felt for me weird to go to churh so I did not force myself.

Btw on pluto is enough evidence that there is no human beings because there is too cold, so automatically there is no shop selling ice-creams.

It's an insult to the majority of humans to suggest we need a set of rules (such as the ten commandments) to tell us how to behave

I like many of those commandments, its not insult for me at all. Like dont steal, dont kill, etc. And people get insulted for things they should not be insulted anyway I see. I hate like when some people do not believe in God and so kill people without being afraid to burn in hell forever. If all people would live by those 10 rules, world would be better place. I dont hate people who dont believe in God and dont do bad things. But for those who do bad things, I really wish they would be punished hard. But there are those who end up living well. One of those is Russia president.

Is it right to keep our relatives like this in cages with concrete floors and glass walls?

Dont know. But animals which we eat, I see no other choice. I really have only few things to eat, and if I remove meat from my options then really it would suck. Meat is so delitious.

Candid wrote: It's impossible to prove a negative...no one can prove there isn't a shop selling ice-creams on Pluto.

When you've understood Dawkins' scientific facts, you'll be able to join him in telling the "whole world to stop believing in what does not exist".

Science is an act of faith that can be as dogmatic as any religion. It is faith driven by a strong belief in a purely physical cosmos. Like any dogma, extremists close their minds to the possibility that things might exist beyond what humanity can observe.

It is interesting. We can use empiricism to point to realities that other species can’t possibly fathom, yet deny that those same principles might apply to our own species. If the most intelligent of mollusks can’t possibly comprehend the existence of the moon, why do we have the ego to believe anything we can’t prove means it can’t exist?

And believing in things that do not exist often serves a valuable function. Laws, money, imaginary lines on the ground, time, the number zero, etc. Read “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind”. Myth (believing in things beyond what we can observe) is what gives our species the ability to organize, to create, to explore.

The argument of science is that only what can be perceived exists while whatever can be conceived does not exist until it can be perceived. It is perception versus conception. I can conceive of a unicorn, but given a unicorn has never been perceived it doesn’t exist. As pointed out we can’t prove a unicorn doesn’t exist.

The follow up question however is the function a unicorn serves as a concept? The concept of a unicorn might not provide much utility, but what about time, laws, zero, infinity, money, etc?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster or an ice cream shop on Pluto is an unfortunate attack on the power of myth, the amazing utility of conception, the value of faith, including faith in science. Because many people do not like how some myths have had a negative impact, they use another myth to justify a belief in a philosophy of a purely physical cosmos.

I’m not saying Candid. I do not know her belief or non belief if things beyond physical observation. I’m saying that science falls prey to the same issues as other ideologies. Empiricism is an act of faith.

It's an insult to the majority of humans to suggest we need a set of rules (such as the ten commandments) to tell us how to behave.

Laws are an insult to the majority of humans? I don’t see why. Rules, whether transmitted orally or in writing form the basis for understanding and cooperation. I don’t see the Hammubari code as being an insult. I see it as an innovative way to provide structure to a growing society.

Hamming wrote:Sounds interesting, but not sure if its worth the time.

This is what you do, Hamming. You've frequently expressed some uneasiness about the issue of whether there's a god, then when someone gives you an answer you say it isn't worth your time. I'm not surprised people you meet face-to-face become reluctant to talk to you.

It is easy to say arguments whjy God does not exist. I can tell them even without reading.

Oh goody. You know, then, what's likely and what's unlikely. The ability to use Occam's razor doesn't preclude flights of imagination.

it felt for me weird to go to churh so I did not force myself.

Thumbs-up to this. Your perceptions and feelings are your best guide through life.

I like many of those commandments, its not insult for me at all. Like dont steal, dont kill, etc.

Without those rules, would you think it was okay to steal and kill? That's the question. I understand the commandments were written by uncivilised and ignorant people, but I still say they are an insult to anyone's intelligence. I say do unto others as you would have them do unto you covers it.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:If the most intelligent of mollusks can’t possibly comprehend the existence of the moon, why do we have the ego to believe anything we can’t prove means it can’t exist?

As before, we can't prove a negative. Science limits itself to observable data and replicable results. A god who sometimes answers prayer but mostly doesn't is obviously not replicable.

And believing in things that do not exist often serves a valuable function.

To which the fiction writers of the world say Amen!

The argument of science is that only what can be perceived exists...

I don't think that's the argument. Plenty of scientists are religious. It's just that the agreed-upon scientific method involves observable data and replicability. It can be frustratingly slow, especially in a 'soft' science such as psychology.

what about time, laws, zero, infinity, money, etc?

Time and money I can get my head around. We've agreed on the measurement of time, so when one person shows up at 10:00 and the other doesn't arrive until 10:42, both will agree the latter was late. We've also agreed on the value of currency, including exchange rates. In Western civilisation laws are based on relevant biblical edicts. "Put God first" is irrelevant because we don't agree on what "God" is, or even if it exists.

To me, zero is observable while infinity is unimaginable. I can't even get my head around the millions of years it took for our planet to be capable of supporting life as we know it. I can, however, just about follow the popularised reasoning of a Richard Dawkins, knowing his academic papers have all been peer-reviewed; and I agree with him that religions cause a lot of untimely death and needless distress in the world. For light relief, I don't pick holes in the work of Douglas Adams, who was a good friend of Dawkins. When we read fiction we suspend disbelief, just to enjoy the ride.

I’m saying that science falls prey to the same issues as other ideologies. Empiricism is an act of faith.

It's the best we've got, and has been for centuries. It's been refined as we go along. If and when faults are found in scientific methodology, or better ways of doing things, science is the first to recognise them and change accordingly. The same can't be said of religion, can it? Religion is prized chiefly for the fact that it doesn't change. And that's great for religion, I'm all for it. What I object to is frightening children with notions of punishment and hell, or launching an attack on another country because its citizens are infidels.

Candid wrote:It's an insult to the majority of humans to suggest we need a set of rules (such as the ten commandments) to tell us how to behave.

Laws are an insult to the majority of humans?

Not the laws themselves, no; the implication that without them we wouldn't know how to behave, would not be able to distinguish right from wrong.

I don’t see the Hammubari code as being an insult. I see it as an innovative way to provide structure to a growing society.

But would you have had some idea of what was fair and reasonable without it? That's the point. Besides, Hammubari's code did not purport to come from God.

I say Moses should have had the balls to put his name to what he chiselled up there. "Put God first", to the many people who both see and hear God in modern times, can mean tying up your child and cutting his throat. These days, thank God, the men in the white coats will take it from there.

Candid wrote: I say Moses should have had the balls to put his name to what he chiselled up there. "Put God first", to the many people who both see and hear God in modern times, can mean tying up your child and cutting his throat. These days, thank God, the men in the white coats will take it from there.

We seem to share similar ethics, i.e. follow the golden rule, don't be a w****r, e.g. don't scare children.

Where we seem to differ, and not necessarily by all that much, is the amount of faith we put in the type of clothing people wear that provide advice or guidance to people suffering.

You put your faith in people wearing white coats. You think that their ideology is the best we have. I'm not so confident. People wearing white coats have done some pretty evil, wankerish things since the rise of that ideology. And like any ideology you get some that are dogmatic or even cultish.

And scientists don't have the balls. They are tools, bought and paid for. They stay up on the mountain and don't even come down. They get paid to use "science" to justify and push and politicize. The church of science is not so different from other churches. They just worship empiricism. And like any altar upon which one might worship it can be used for good or bad.

Men in white coats have been used to justify genocide, to dehumanize, to gain power. It used to be kings would seek justification from men in white robes, but now they defer to men in white coats. And in my opinion, in both categories, the underlying mechanisms of human nature show through. In both categories, you have people that scare children. If we believe the men in white coats the world was to end how many times now?

Men in white robes said the world flooded. Pretty scary stuff. Men in white coats have said the same thing in one version or another. Fear sells and the men in white coats have no problem using that tool.

From a historical context, Moses had some pretty big balls in my opinion. He was taking on Egypt and any number of tribes all positioning themselves to claim more power. Egypt was struggling so conditions were ripe for revolt, ripe for change. Moses = Che Gueverra. Lots of balls even if you don't agree with the ideology.

It wasn't as if there were no people in power that might not have accused Moses of some equivalent form of heresy or treason and executed him for daring to challenge them. How many other people came down from the mountain and were never seen or heard from again? We don't know. It is survivor bias.

I guess my struggle is that I don't like the idea of pointing to the atrocities of one ideology while ignoring the atrocities of the other. I don't like the comparison game either, where one ideology has a lower death count than another or claims some superior result based on X or Y metric. People have and continue to do good work wearing both white robes and white coats.

This is what you do, Hamming. You've frequently expressed some uneasiness about the issue of whether there's a god, then when someone gives you an answer you say it isn't worth your time. I'm not surprised people you meet face-to-face become reluctant to talk to you.

There is clear that people are not always right. How can I know that you are right? I have had situations when I ask same advice to different people and they advice the opposite, so it proves that not all people give right advice.

If I would ask some strongly religious person should I read this book, to find truth about religion, he would likely give me advice not to read this book, he could say it is written by evil. I would say but I am interested, I will read, and then then he would be reluctant to talk to me?

So no matter what I choose it is bad, unless it matches the other people opinion?

Without those rules, would you think it was okay to steal and kill? That's the question. I understand the commandments were written by uncivilised and ignorant people, but I still say they are an insult to anyone's intelligence. I say do unto others as you would have them do unto you covers it.

Yes. Some people really make world a bad place and should be killed. At least - those who kill other innocent people intentionally.

About stealing - yes, I like this rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you covers it". BUt sadly not everybody follows it. So not sure. And stealing feels for me like a game. Often I see things which I could steal without being noticed. Like paper towels in toilet I know I use them at home, so I could have them free and I have read on interent some people cconstantly steal toilet paper from the job and they dont need to buy it for home

And if I had a company, probably from me also those would be stolen if I had many employees. So not sure. The commandment stops me from from doing this. But if I completely stop believeing in God, maybe one day I will start steal at least from those who do not feal big loss. Not from my friends. I kind of feel like smart - over long time for toilet paper we still spend some good money I guess.

Hamming wrote:How can I know that you are right? I have had situations when I ask same advice to different people and they advice the opposite, so it proves that not all people give right advice.

This is the price you pay when you don't keep your own eyes open and weigh the evidence you see: you keep asking the same question of other people but you can't trust their replies. IOW, you lack the capacity to reason things out for yourself.

If I would ask some strongly religious person should I read this book, to find truth about religion, he would likely give me advice not to read this book, he could say it is written by evil. I would say but I am interested, I will read, and then then he would be reluctant to talk to me?

One way you could sort this out is to decide whose company you prefer: people who say there is a god or people who say there isn't. I once met a man who settled the question this way. He met some Christians, he liked them and they seemed to be happy, so he became a member of their church and as far as I know he stuck with it.

I myself would be wary of anyone who told me not to read a book in which I was interested. I choose what I read, not anyone else. I have religious and non-religious friends, although the religious ones aren't so religious that they spend all our time together telling me I'm headed for hell if I don't do what their leader says I should do.

I suspect what started you off was religious indoctrination when you were too young to discriminate or make choices for yourself. I gather it was Catholicism, which relies heavily on the fear of hell. You might like to consider whether you actually want to serve an all-loving god who's just hanging out to torture you for all eternity, leaving you in a fire from which you can never die, much less escape, and all because you pinched a roll of toilet paper.

So no matter what I choose it is bad, unless it matches the other people opinion?

You haven't mentioned being blind, deaf, or intellectually challenged, so you're on an equal footing with everybody else who uses a brain and five senses to decide what's true. If Richard Dawkins is too much for you, maybe you'd enjoy a Richard of another flavour: Richard Bach, author of Illusions, The Bridge Across Forever, Running From Safety and many more.

In my experience, people raised in Catholicism are the ones who worry most about the logic of what they've been taught. And of course, questioning what they were taught ranks high in their vast catalogue of sins.

Some people really make world a bad place and should be killed. At least - those who kill other innocent people intentionally.

Yes, that's the Judeo-Christian 'ideal', which assumes people can determine who's good and who's bad, then we can kill all the bad ones and have heaven on earth. But hang on a minute: who's going to do the killing, and doesn't that make them just as bad?

What do you think of people whose religion tells them to bomb and terrorise countries in which religious observance differs from their own? Which version of god are you backing?

I say do what you believe is right -- and if that includes regular petitions to an imaginary friend, so be it.

I like this rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you covers it". BUt sadly not everybody follows it.

Stick with people you like and steer clear of those you don't. What could be simpler, make more sense, or contribute more to personal happiness?

The commandment stops me from from doing this. But if I completely stop believeing in God, maybe one day I will start steal at least from those who do not feal big loss.

Why not do the experiment, have a day off from believing in god and find out whether you immediately take up petty larceny? There's no substitute for personal experience.

To me it's comical for anyone to believe there's an invisible man watching not just their actions but their thoughts as well -- and not only theirs, but the thoughts and deeds of everyone alive, 24 hours of every day. Or that this invisible man made people, and told them they were in charge.

It's less comical when these godly people attack and kill anyone who thinks differently.

As a lay biologist, I can see evolution with my own eyes. Also as a lay biologist, I can't help asking who or what made an invisible man so incredibly sophisticated as to be capable of all the activity ascribed to him?

Science welcomes questions. It's growing and alive. Religion discourages questions, and when questions are raised there's always some bloke in a gorgeous robe to interpret an obscure part of scripture in response. The question for me is why I would look for right and wrong in the writings of people who lived and died thousands of years ago.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:You put your faith in people wearing white coats. You think that their ideology is the best we have.

Yes, I do. When I take action about my cataracts sometime next year, I'll put my faith in a surgeon who knows what s/he's doing rather than a prayer by the nearest vicar on the off-chance that his god hasn't got a good reason for depriving me of sight.

People wearing white coats have done some pretty evil, wankerish things since the rise of that ideology. And like any ideology you get some that are dogmatic or even cultish.

I have no knowledge of this, unless you mean people carrying out Hitler's 'experiments'. The scientific community at large doesn't approve of that kind of thing, even when done under duress.

The church of science is not so different from other churches. They just worship empiricism. And like any altar upon which one might worship it can be used for good or bad.

I'm inclined to think the insistence on proof is a good thing, even though I myself sometimes find it frustratingly slow. Obviously that's preferable to leaping to conclusions such as "Here I am. I didn't get myself here, so an unfathomable god must have done it". I'm not seeing a scientific altar, never to be messed with, but a genuine welcoming of contrary evidence in order to advance human knowledge. I'm aware there have been exceptions to this, academic sabotage and cover-up, but they're soon weeded out. As well as a gsoh, the scientists I've known have shown genuine humility and curiosity.

When the chips are down I'll take knowledge, whatever stage it's at, over fairy tales. When I'm writing a sci-fi book for children I have no qualms about making it up as I go along.

In both categories, you have people that scare children.

I can't argue with the fact that babies scream when they're innoculated against killer diseases. I believe that's called a necessary evil, iow not evil at all.

If we believe the men in white coats the world was to end how many times now?

That's been proposed at least as often by the men in white robes. They can even persuade people that drinking the Kool-Aid will avert a worse fate. It's my contention that holy men and holy books have caused far too much suffering over the centuries, and continue to do so.

Fear sells and the men in white coats have no problem using that tool.

This is news to me. The scientists of my acquaintance have nothing to sell, however competitive they may be among themselves. Biologists have a hard enough job getting funding for what they do. Can you give me an example of white-coated men using fear to advance personal status, or anything else?

When it comes to history as written in the christian bible, I'll have to plead ignorant. I will agree that the white-robed as well as the white-coated do good work, but I deplore the premise of those religions who say we're all sinful unless and until we worship something for which there is zero evidence, which requires its devotees to convert the heathen at best, and go to war at worst.

This is the price you pay when you don't keep your own eyes open and weigh the evidence you see: you keep asking the same question of other people but you can't trust their replies. IOW, you lack the capacity to reason things out for yourself.

I do not understand, what do you mean by saying I dont keep my eyes open?

Yes, I cannot trust. How can I? It is obvious that one of them is not trustable. I just do not know who.
How can I gain that capacity? Probably some super hard way will be.

One way you could sort this out is to decide whose company you prefer: people who say there is a god or people who say there isn't. I once met a man who settled the question this way. He met some Christians, he liked them and they seemed to be happy, so he became a member of their church and as far as I know he stuck with it.

Yea, but looks like he was strongly believing in God. Plus happines maybe made him to keep that way. Based on what I see I give like 1 % probability that God exists and 99 % that it is not. So 1 % probability that I will burn in hell forever if I live as if God does not exist

I suspect what started you off was religious indoctrination when you were too young to discriminate or make choices for yourself. I gather it was Catholicism, which relies heavily on the fear of hell. You might like to consider whether you actually want to serve an all-loving god who's just hanging out to torture you for all eternity,
leaving you in a fire from which you can never die, much less escape, and all because you pinched a roll of toilet paper.

Yes, it was since first grade like when I was 7 years old. Its not about if I want or dont want if God exists , there is no choice

You haven't mentioned being blind, deaf, or intellectually challenged, so you're on an equal footing with everybody else who uses a brain and five senses to decide what's true. If Richard Dawkins is too much for you, maybe you'd enjoy a Richard of another flavour: Richard Bach, author of Illusions, The Bridge Across Forever, Running From Safety and many more.

People with those five senses make wrong decisions often. I am no different. The thing is - if it is smartly written text, talk and lot of it, it makes people believe as I understand very wrong things. You might start thinking that it makes sense. And you might not see some oposite arguments. If it is wrong that God exists, it made believe me because there is so much tellign this, even smart people believe, even scientits believe. So this is not Santa Claus where any adult knows it does not exist.

Yes, that's the Judeo-Christian 'ideal', which assumes people can determine who's good and who's bad, then we can kill all the bad ones and have heaven on earth. But hang on a minute: who's going to do the killing, and doesn't that make them just as bad?

Killing a a man who intentionally killed other people I dont see anything bad. How is it bad? It will make closer to heaven on earth. He does not deserve to live if he is that bad. Only problem I see that there might be false kills, make guilty inncocent man. I dont see other way to make those people be good. And even if there would be such way - it is not fair. He should get what he deserves. Would you not feel the anger if somebody would kill your close friend? Would you not want bad thing to happen to a killer? I would.

What do you think of people whose religion tells them to bomb and terrorise countries in which religious observance differs from their own? Which version of god are you backing?

THat they are idiots, and bad people. THey believe false god. If my religion does not lie, there is only one God. Others are not real. But I might be one of those idiots also by believing in God, but at least I dont kill other people. Then thinking more deeply - they might be not idiots but made believing so strongly in false thing as me. But still probably terroritts even muslims are just small percent. So you can maybe still be good and be muslim and those who are bad, are idiots really and if they at least plan to terorize- should be killed, not waiting till some innocent people will die because of them.
Version of God - the real one - Cacholic

Stick with people you like and steer clear of those you don't. What could be simpler, make more sense, or contribute more to personal happiness?

I try to stick with people who I like. But many people I dont like because they hurt me but in life I have to get meet them. Did not understand the question.

Why not do the experiment, have a day off from believing in god and find out whether you immediately take up petty larceny? There's no substitute for personal experience.

not sure how do I do it. There are days when I dont think about God, so maybe on those days its like I dont believe?

Hamming wrote:Yes, I cannot trust. How can I? It is obvious that one of them is not trustable. I just do not know who.
How can I gain that capacity? Probably some super hard way will be.

Not necessarily. You need to trust yourself, first and foremost, and ask yourself questions. I would propose: Am I happier believing in god, or happier not?

I give like 1 % probability that God exists and 99 % that it is not. So 1 % probability that I will burn in hell forever if I live as if God does not exist

I don't think fear of a theoretical god is a good reason for ignoring your own stats., ie 99 per cent certainty that there isn't one and one per cent not only that there is, but that it's ready to burn you for eternity. If you must have a god, surely it's better to pick a god you can trust to have your welfare at heart?

People with those five senses make wrong decisions often. I am no different.

Nor am I, or anyone else you might ask. It's called being human. I've noticed the worst mistakes will send us off the course we were on and invariably replace it with something better -- but perhaps I'm an incurable optimist. Making mistakes is inevitable, but what you do to recover from them is, like everything else, up to you.

So this is not Santa Claus where any adult knows it does not exist.

It ought to be! The educated writers of the bible and other 'holy' books did the best they could to make sense of a bewildering world. Centuries down the track our brightest and best are continuing the tradition. It was a much bigger leap than Neil Armstrong's "one small step" when Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859. Just think: biblical authors believed our planet was the centre of the universe, and that species had been created individually, fixed and immutable.

Do you want to base your life on the authority of people who didn't know dinosaurs had ever existed, or who believed the Earth was flat?

Killing a a man who intentionally killed other people I dont see anything bad. How is it bad? It will make closer to heaven on earth.

Killing someone as punishment is surely more intentional than killing any other way, and I don't see how it can possibly lead to heaven on earth. If we kill all the bad people, we'll ultimately be left with a world of deliberate killers.

Would you not feel the anger if somebody would kill your close friend? Would you not want bad thing to happen to a killer? I would.

Of course. All of that. But assuming the killer has fled the scene, I wouldn't feel the least desire to hunt him down myself.

THey believe false god. If my religion does not lie, there is only one God. Others are not real.

Surely you must know all religions claim that?

Then thinking more deeply - they might be not idiots but made believing so strongly in false thing as me.

Quite. And when weighing up any religion, it's worth asking yourself who benefits from having religious adherents? I would have thought the answer was obvious in the case of the Catholic church.

I try to stick with people who I like. But many people I dont like because they hurt me but in life I have to get meet them. Did not understand the question.

It wasn't so much a question as a suggestion that you hone your capacity to know what you're feeling at any time. This feels good, this feels bad, this makes me feel better about myself, this makes me feel like a jerk, this makes me happy, this doesn't.

If there was a god, surely She would expect us to trust the feelings She gave us.

Having so little faith in your own judgment suggests the ability to acknowledge your own feelings has been hammered out of you. It might take a while for you even to know what you're feeling at any given time, which explains why you have trouble intuiting your friends' feelings.

There are days when I dont think about God, so maybe on those days its like I dont believe?

Are they happer days? That's the question.