Choosing a faith

Phat, you're a moron. I thought I had more to say, but that covers it.

Silly rabbit. Nobody believes the whole story. The question is which parts one chooses to keep.

I believed the entirety of it. All of it. Get over yourself, you can not know what I felt and believed. I'm telling you I believed it as much as anyone could - no exceptions. From what you say, you have less of a believe than I did. Now ain't that a howler...

Oh, we did question. That's why we no longer believe.It turns out that "Because God is with everyone" is indistinguishable from "there is no God." And if I cannot tell the difference, why bother with a useless belief.

Seems to me that we believed more than you.
We had so much Faith, that we believed no question could ever do any harm to God. How could it?So, we asked the questions.Not being willing to question your God means you have less Faith in His ability to provide good answers. It's a sign of insecurity.

I disagree that empathy is a biological function. You can describe a history of the rise, and decline for that matter, of empathy within cultures. That however is not evidence that empathy is a biological function.I also don't agree that the still small voice of god is missing in some. It can absolutely be drowned out by all of the other influences that we are subject to, or by mental illness for that matter.

Is there a universal standard for what is natural or for what constitutes normal people?Wouldn't normal be looking out for number one? Again, you seem to be the arbiter of what of what constitutes reality, as you do with the question of normal behaviour.If we are simply the result of mindless processes from mindless material then why do you insist on there being any norms at all?

Yes - when we discover what makes things work the way they do without finding any supernatural aspect to it.We didn't have to discover gravity - we could have discovered tiny angels pushing everything down. Turns out it's not supernatural - it's natural.
We didn't have to discover weather patterns - we could have discovered saints that controlled the weather. Turns out it's not supernatural - it's natural.
We didn't have to discover plate tectonics - we could have discovered demons responsible for earthquakes. Turns out it's not supernatural - it's natural.
We didn't have to discover evolution - we could have discovered God creating animals/humans/everything from scratch. Turns out it's not supernatural - it's natural.
We didn't have to discover the evolution of society - we could have discovered that societies came from the Tower of Babel, assigned by God. Turns out it's not supernatural - it's natural.
We didn't have to discover the evolution of morality - we could have discovered that empathy only existed in humans, placed there by God. Turns out it's not supernatural - it's natural.When we discover what makes things work the way they do without finding any supernatural aspect to it - it shows that it's from being natural and normal people. Yes - and evolution did that too. But they died out. Turns out if you look out for others, your society is better able to adapt to your environment than the ones that only look out for number one. So, the "only number one's" died out. Our ancestors killed them. And the more social species continued. Evolution! How so?All I try to do is compare my thoughts against the facts we find in reality.
When they match - I assume my thoughts are valid.
When they don't match - I assume my thoughts are wrong.You're the one who uses your "common sense" to try and define reality, even when reality says you're wrong - remember the millions of papers of evidence showing that you're wrong? The only thing I insist on is that our ideas of "what is true" match the results we find in reality.
If you can show how I'm not following that rule - then you can show me and I can learn something.
If all you have is your own personal "common sense" or refusal to accept the facts we're able to identify... without being able to connect it to reality in any way - well, we already know that such ideas are terrible at identifying what's real.

If empathy is not a biological function how exactly does it work? We know of NO human or animal reaction that is not biology. 10 minutes googling the neuroscience of empathy get's you a lifetimes worth of reading. But you just 'disagree' - no explanation necessaryHow we empathize with others: A neurobiological perspective - PMC Simple denial is not good enough"Neuroscience has identified brain structures and functions that correlate with psychopathic tendencies."https://www.frontiersin.org/...10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00294/full

That is a very silly notion, Phat. Choosing to keep something and believing something are two very different things. Suppose the story goes that you can jump off of a cliff and that if you then flap your arms you will grow wings and safely land on your feet. If you choose to disregard the wing thing and to keep the safe landing part, good luck to you. It's just not how things work. Belief is not a matter of choice.Added by edit: The above should not be misconstrued as me believing that flapping ones arms would really result in keeping one from ending up splattered at the bottom of the cliff. But you get my drift, no doubt.

Good question. *sips coffee*

My point wasn't to say that atheist faith vs. theist faith is better or worse.
My point is to say that comparing something subjective - like faith - is a bad argument to make, for anyone.
Where is the "faith measuring tape" to compare one's faith to another's?You either take others at their word, or you accuse them of lying about themselves without any ground to support such an accusation.It's up to you to decide which path a Christian would follow.

The belief is/was useless because God was only with you(or not) There is no difference between being with everyone on the planet and not existing. That much you understand.What I'm talking about is the belief that God is actually in us. That God is with everyone yet is only "in" those who chose back. It never made sense to any of you because perhaps He was never invited into you. You did not see and you did not believe...beyond a certain point. I did. And when I did, the change was felt. I knew.My numerous critics will challenge my claim. They always do. jar will ask me how would I know it was God and not a bad burrito. I knew. Ringo will accuse me of not doing what the message said to do. And I am guilty. None of you can climb inside my head(just as Tangle said about me judging him) but you likely will collectively say that without evidence I have no argument. And that is where the stalemate will remain for the likely life of EvC Forum, its members, and in regards to evidence.

I was a Christian at one time, and it did seem to make sense to me. I left Christianity because so many people who called themselves "Christian" were not behaving as Christians should. Jesus said "By their fruits ye shall know them" but those fruits were not showing.It was only after I had left Christianity, that I began to realize the absurdity of those beliefs.

​ You just keep repeating the same old argument by showing how they exist without explaining why the exist in the first place. It's, once again, like saying that there is no intelligent origin to a robotic assembly line. And again, that is confusing the benefits of co-operation with empathy and altruism. Evolution on it's own leads to wolves enjoying the benefits of hunting in a pack to take down a prey, and then fighting over the spoils. What paper. You can show me a paper like tangle does that shows how empathy and altruism evolved in humans, (and other animals too), but that does not answer the question of whether or not those characteristics were externally influenced or not.