Will you settle for a tiger?
If I debate I'm always open for the other side's arguments, because that's only fair. But if I see all kinds of holes where I can rip the arguments to shreds, then I will do so. When I debate I do it fairly, never with already preformed stuff in my head. I don't start a discussion but already dismiss everything being said by the other party because I don't want to hear it.
So I say again, if you think you can make a valid point and convince me that my arguments are based on stuff that isn't true, then please let us hear it. But don't avoid the questions whenever I make a comment which you don't have a good answer for or whatever.

And I say again, I'm not criticising the way you debate. Merely that nothing you can say will convince a religious person that you're right. And probably nothing that they can say will give you an insight into their mindset.

All of which is a complicated way of saying that I'm bored of this discussion and defending religion when I'm not even religious myself any more.

Hell, I'm bored with reading it.

QFT

Damn.

I'm not saying it's my personal argument, just one that is out there. The Church say proof denies faith, yet they constantly talk of God's miracles which, if they were miracles, are proof of his existence, so either they're contradicting themselves or are saying the miracles weren't really divine (Not explicitly, more through the fact that they preach the miracles yet claim to not preach proof of God). That may not make much sense, but I've heard that explanation-thing said quite a bit.

Unfortunately, although (see my earlier proof) it is impossibly unlikely that any religion is true, it cannot be proven that a religion is false unless its predictions are shown to be false, and most religions do not have testable predictions that occur within a finite timeframe. Also, religions cannot be proven as it is impossible to prove any theory. Therefore, this religion debate will continue between the sceptics and the believers i.e. (those who don't believe until proven) and (those who believe until disproven) forever, or, at least as long as Homo sapiens lasts, which probably isn't going to be very long. I don't really have any problem with people believing things I believe to be ridiculous, or doing things I believe are pointless(e.g. Homosexual relations/sex) except when they try to force me to believe the same thing, which strains my mental structure. Of course, you could argue that since no religion makes predictions of the sort mentioned earlier, they are perfectly acceptable as theories unless they self-contradict (which some do), but I prefer to use the principle of parsimony.

It's a matter of faith, not logical reasoning.

That's exactly what I said about belivers. I said they would believe until the idea was proved wrong, which is true in this case, as most religions cannot be disproven.

Then they aren't true believers. A true believer is someone who will stick with what they believe in no matter how many reformations of their faith go underway by other people. They believe in what they were taught in the beginning and won't shift gears out of fear or doubt.

Anyway, I don't really care. God or life can't be explained in a way that allows humans to fully understand either concepts. With all the scientific advancements humans have made, God is starting to look questionable and with the mystery of life itself, believing in a god makes it much easier to have those mysteries solved without having to actually solve them, so in the end, the best solution to all of this is to simply live life in the way that pleases you most. I'm not saying religion isn't somehting to explore. I myself have dabbled in a few faiths and it was pretty refreshing. It's fundementalism that's bad. To take religion for word for word. To not look for symbols or to not read between the lines.

I agree, and I think I wasn't clear enough. What I was saying is that believers will believe without proof, while sceptics require proof. I'm not trying to convert you or anything, and I agree about fundamentalism. For my point of view, see my av.

You worship fairies? Lawlz.

What is your problem? How come belief in God is acceptable, while my rather personal religion is not? It just shows how biased our culture is.

Well, some religions are hard to believe and then some religions are down right retarded. The worship of faeries would fall under the latter.

Just like it was your choice to have kids at whatever age, it's my choice to believe in faeries. It's no more unbelievable than Islam or Judaism or Christianity or Buddhism or Zoroastrianism for that matter. It is as valid as all the others except that it has fewer followers.

Magic does have a point, believing in a fatherly figure high in the sky which no-one has ever seen is no less retarded then believing in faeries...

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter. )

You dare deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?!!

FSM rules. Have you seen the video of the giant inflatable FSM towering over buildings on the website that some German guys filmed?

Glad to be, if not believed, then at least supported.

But at least other religions have scriptures. What exactly does your religion have?

It's not that your belief is stupid, it's just faeries has a humorous connotation to it as opposed to words like spirits or gods.

I guess you could say I carry a similar belief. Based off personal experiences, all of which could be explained logically. But in the end, I don't care. Because there are other duties in life that concentration needs to be spent more on than some mysterious "spirits."