To Banjo Paterson.

Thank you for your kind response. Sorry if I was bitter or defensive from the start. I've had a similar conversation a while ago on OLO that went on very badly. My family and I are doing well. I hope you and yours are also. I'm sorry to report that I'm not actually Australian. I hope that doesn't bother you too much. There are a lot of views on this site that deal with similar subjects that are in the US. That and I've become interested in what a lot of you guys have to say.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for inheritance being the reason for religious influence. I don't think that's a bad thing, nor is it the only factor for why someone is influenced by a religion or believes in it. Parents should influence their children, in all matters of life. From how to see the world, how to behave, dealing with life, as well as anything that comes from their religion. It's my opinion that parents (usually) try to put the best things they have to offer into their children. That would include their faith and other world views that they hold as true. But it's only an influence, it's not the deciding factor. Best as I can tell, my 2 brothers don't believe in any religion. They both might have their views of God, or something out there like God, but not in any one's religion. The same can be said for me. I am glad for what my dad taught me through his faith. His religious influence was enough to appreciate the Baha'i Faith and the Baha'i community in that area, even after I made a decision that it wasn't from God. I'm not afraid of Christianity being dethroned. I don't think it will happen. In fact from what I've heard, though Christianity doesn't seem to have too much growth in western societies, it does have a lot of growth in other parts of the world. Also I'm not seeing that it's shrinking either in western society. Just that occasionally those who disagree with Christianity grow louder, or become more influential in politics at times. But the number of Christians when you talk to people about their beliefs seems to be around the same ratio as before.

To Oscilloscope,

I like what you said but how do you apply it in action.

<<Life is how you live and it. And it is worth living if your making the most of it every second.>>

For instance what do you tell some one who's lost their job during Covid actions and is really worried about making ends meet? Or alternatively, what do you if you are that person?

To Toni.

If you wanted to gauge Thor's ability to answer prayers, then pray to Thor to see what you can. It has no influence on whether there is any merit from Hindu prayers, Christian prayers, or new age philosophy to train you mind to think positively and life with be successful. If on the other hand, if you pray to Thor (when he's not in a marvel movie as you've pointed out, apparently with no ridicule) with no intention to see if there is an answer from him, but instead as a counter point to Christian prayers or Hindu prayer, then there is no sound reasoning behind this. It is ridicule.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the rationale of my conclusions being in error. I'll say the same thing I said to Banjo Paterson.

<<It would be easier to try to find God on your own then to debate how someone else has found God. That way you can see on your own instead of offer shallow explanations for events you weren't there for.>>

I'm not asking someone to agree with just because I say something is this way or that way, any more then they should expect me to believe them based on them saying so. However I do have two positions on this topic that should be worth noting.

1) you can investigate on your own and come to your own conclusions. (t's not something you need a college degree or special training to have the tools necessary to look for God). But instead if I can do it and find God then so can anyone else.

2) people disagree with each other all the time on any subject matter. However the person who knows what they say is accurate should not have to silence their perspective just because someone else is unconvinced and isn't in a position to become convinced. Speak the truth without resistance is a better approach in my opinion, then only speak the defensibly argued truth. Not everyone is a good debater, but their views, observations, and reasoning might be worth considering if they stand by their position in spite of someone else arguing well against their position. The aspect worth considering is, "why didn't they change? is there a chance they are stubborn and too proud to admit to being wrong. Or is it because they are right, even if they don't debate it any more?" From this outlook standing by what you know is right, is it's own defense in light of whatever else is said about it.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for me, I'm not going to debate what I know or how I know it regarding how I know that God exists. I've followed that rabbit hole before, and if is not worth my time or efforts to do it again. It's still true that He does exist, and it's true that you can find Him with some investigation. (I am willing to help in that search, or give ideas on how to look). However, it's not worth my time to try and debate about my life's observations, to someone (or someones) who don't acknowledge where their own perspectives are weak, or are even ridicule. I'm not going to spin my wheels on that again unless I know at least that I'm talking to someone reasonable. Either believe my accounts, consider them as possible, or don't believe them. I'm not going to debate with you that I am a good witness of my own life.