2248 replies to this topic

[Kazzerax]

I agree with pretty much everything Zalzaron has said. I don't know why you guys are refusing to address his points instead of going to "yeah well just because it's a fact that some people are crazy and blow themselves up for hot virgin sex doesn't mean they all do!" He never said every Muslim is a suicide bomber, nor did he say every Christian is anti gay. Why are you people bothering to say "well you forgot the hippy dippy super peaceful Muslims!" Oh he did? Great, because they're practicing their religion and leaving everyone alone, not every religious person does.

[Dohregard]

I agree with pretty much everything Zalzaron has said. I don't know why you guys are refusing to address his points instead of going to "yeah well just because it's a fact that some people are crazy and blow themselves up for hot virgin sex doesn't mean they all do!" He never said every Muslim is a suicide bomber, nor did he say every Christian is anti gay. Why are you people bothering to say "well you forgot the hippy dippy super peaceful Muslims!" Oh he did? Great, because they're practicing their religion and leaving everyone alone, not every religious person does.

You fail to get our real point:

Why beat a dead horse?

We all KNOW their are religious nut jobs out their, so what good is spouting the same "Religion is bad because of the fanatics" phrases over and over? The Moderate religious people still have some of the view points of either side of the debate, yet they don't take to the streets, are they bad? Most people are afraid to express their points on these topics because people tend to make these exact comments. "you believe that? Your religion is therefore backwords and infuriating. I now hate you and everything you stand for."

That's fanaticism if I've ever seen it. I suppose you might call it reverse fanaticism.

[zalzaron]

You fail to get our real point:

Why beat a dead horse?

We all KNOW their are religious nut jobs out their, so what good is spouting the same "Religion is bad because of the fanatics" phrases over and over? The Moderate religious people still have some of the view points of either side of the debate, yet they don't take to the streets, are they bad? Most people are afraid to express their points on these topics because people tend to make these exact comments. "you believe that? Your religion is therefore backwords and infuriating. I now hate you and everything you stand for."

That's fanaticism if I've ever seen it. I suppose you might call it reverse fanaticism.

The problem is that it's not the extremists. The moderate's can cause problems aswell.

You happen too know what Sharia law is? Yeah that's right the barbaric form of law that has only survived to this day for it being applied in middle eastern countries and because islam promotes it as the ideal form of law.

Ooh it appears i made a mistake. It is applied in middle eastern countries AND the UK. That's right as we speak there are sharia courts active in the UK and they are allowed to judge over public affairs. A quik research regarding these courts has allready shown that women are basically put behind men as a rule of thumb rather then exception.

The extremists won't change the western world that i love so very much and it's ideals, but this growing moderate group of muslims that have not yet changed to a more mild form as the christians have ARE a danger to those ideals. Don't pretend like this is just me fear mongering, there are sharia courts in the UK as we speak, how does that not show the negative influences that moderate islam can have?

Edited by zalzaron, 25 November 2009 - 04:39 AM.

[Dohregard]

The problem is that it's not the extremists. The moderate's can cause problems aswell.

You happen too know what Sharia law is? Yeah that's right the barbaric form of law that has only survived to this day for it being applied in middle eastern countries and because islam promotes it as the ideal form of law.

Ooh it appears i made a mistake. It is applied in middle eastern countries AND the UK. That's right as we speak there are sharia courts active in the UK and they are allowed to judge over public affairs. A quik research regarding these courts has allready shown that women are basically put behind men as a rule of thumb rather then exception.

The extremists won't change the western world that i love so very much and it's ideals, but this growing moderate group of muslims that have not yet changed to a more mild form as the christians have ARE a danger to those ideals. Don't pretend like this is just me fear mongering, there are sharia courts in the UK as we speak, how does that not show the negative influences that moderate islam can have?

So you think that the western world should tell these people how to run their religion?

[way2lazy2care]

The extremists won't change the western world that i love so very much and it's ideals, but this growing moderate group of muslims that have not yet changed to a more mild form as the christians have ARE a danger to those ideals. Don't pretend like this is just me fear mongering, there are sharia courts in the UK as we speak, how does that not show the negative influences that moderate islam can have?

you are aware that sharia courts in the UK are the same as Judge Judy in the US. As long as both parties agree to face the results of the outcome of the sharia court, then the UK will support it. If either party doesn't want to, it doesn't matter.

And sorry us moderate christians have done such horrible things as not wanting to kill unborn children and believing same sex couples should have legal unions instead of marriages. Clearly both of those will lead to us demanding everyone follows christian law while using homosexuals as a servant race.

It should be noted that I'm a pro-choice catholic that openly supports homosexuals. We really aren't as bad as people make us out to be.

You also shouldn't blame catholocism for any moral issues in the US. The catholic church is actually not the majority here. Unless something's changed hugely, we're still outnumberred 2:1 by protestants.

[norazlazzz]

So you think that the western world should tell these people how to run their religion?

A clever dodge but surely i cannot continue to entertain you with this joust of words if you only want to ask questions and never respond to my posts. I made a point and i find it almost rude to simply ask a question rather then to respond. It makes me wonder should i in the future make more elaborate responses if all i can expect is you dodging the point and trying to throw it on a diffrent track.

Please respond how the new gained knowledge that you have obtained regarding the exsistence of sharia laws in the UK makes you feel. How do you feel regarding the UK allowing Sharia law to operate.

you are aware that sharia courts in the UK are the same as Judge Judy in the US. As long as both parties agree to face the results of the outcome of the sharia court, then the UK will support it. If either party doesn't want to, it doesn't matter.

The law is the law it's as simple as that. We have a system of laws and rules and it is simply the best system in the entire world. Something as barbaric as Sharia law should not even be permitted in modern society. Who cares if it's like judge judy? We allready have a system of laws and it works and it protects the right of the defense and the prosecutor. It takes into account what the truth is and is precided over by highly trained judges who try to work out what is justice and it all works fine. We have no need for sharia law and it simply should not be permitted.

This is the west and here we have our own value's and ideal that differ from those in other parts of the world like the middle east. Why must we in the west sell out our ideals to a muslim minority and permit them to go around our system of law? We shouldn't adapt to them because they are living in OUR part of the world. They are more then welcome to live here aswell but that means they have to obey to our rules and our laws. If you have people over in your house those people still have to follow your rules.

And if sharia law is really that important then they have the right to go and live somewhere where they practice this brutal form of law. But if they consider economic security is more important then sharia law then they sharia law they can live all the days of their lives here. In the west we have a rule of law and we have all kinds of ideals and value's that suit us and that have grown over the ages. If people like those ideals they can come and live here, but if they don't, then why live here in the first place?

You have a great deal of freedom in where you choose to live and people should go and live in places that THEY like. They shouldn't live in europe because of our great economy but then start to change the foundation of our countries. Sharia law does not belong in the west and should never have been allowed in the first place.


On a different note you stated that the sharia courts only count when both sides agree to it but that still doesn't change anything. Integration does not work as well as in Europe as it does in America. Many groups still cluster around their own groups and remain in those circles so it also suits to logic that these people would choose to have their disputes solved by a sharia law court. These courts however have time and time again been shown to put women on 2nd place. We don't let everyone have their own form of law, we have our own system of law and anyone that comes to live here should do so realising that this system of law is the one we are all governed by.

And sorry us moderate christians have done such horrible things as not wanting to kill unborn children and believing same sex couples should have legal unions instead of marriages. Clearly both of those will lead to us demanding everyone follows christian law while using homosexuals as a servant race.

It should be noted that I'm a pro-choice catholic that openly supports homosexuals. We really aren't as bad as people make us out to be.

You also shouldn't blame catholocism for any moral issues in the US. The catholic church is actually not the majority here. Unless something's changed hugely, we're still outnumberred 2:1 by protestants.

But you see you can live that lifestyle. Moderate christians can tell their children to never have an abortian and keep their children locked up if they want to enter in a gay marriage, they can do all that because i allow them to live their lifestyle as they choose to live it. But why must you also want to see other people follow those rules? Can't people live their own lives by the rules they follow or set up, but also see that other people will wish to live their life the way they want it?

Christians can live their life just as they want to, there is nothing stopping them from living their religion. But homosexuals for example ARE limited in their choises. Marriage is no longer a religous thing, thousands of couples that don't believe in a god get married every year. Marriage isn't very religious these days it's simply a higher step in a relationship. And this has long been acknowledged by the state by giving special rights to married people. Let homosexuals get married aswell, allowing them to live their lifestyle as they see it fit, and live your own life by your own rules and don't seek to enforce them outside of that line.

Whilst i might have been saying "You" i don't literally mean you because as you stated you are pro-choice and you support homosexuals so ofcourse this doesn't really apply to you as much. My points have mostly been against people that vote religion, aka vote what their church tells them to or votes on what they see as the most religious candidate or the candidate that furthers their religious agenda the most. I find those people to be a destructive force in a democracy because there are so many things that are more important then religious subjects yet there are a great deal of people that do not care for those and only seek to further their own agenda.

Those people create a voter block that can be crucial to winning an election and whilst it's not the majority, candidates can feel presured to create pro-religion laws just to win over said voter block. Again it doesn't have to be a majority. Let's say 10% of voters in an area are christians, then that still represents ALOT of people. It might not be 50% but it could still be large enough to be a decisive factor.

---------------------------


Why do i post under such a peculiar name, good question. It appears my opinions are not welcomed by some mods or one mod, i could not say. Clearly i have been found in violation of the rules even though i tried to go over each post i made time and time again in an effort to make sure i wasn't personally atacking anyone. Perhaps i slipped up and did infact insult someone for the sole purpose of insulting someone.\

I simply wanted to state that i find it sad that i have been banned because i can't help but feel that i have been banned based on my content rather then my behaviour. I have taken part in a few debates here in this section and i have come across members that have been ten times more vulgar and personally offensive against me but also against others, but never did those people ever receive a warning let alone a ban.

I can't help but shrug the feeling that by taking a rather controversial stand against religion and things like sharia law that i have been banned because my viewpoint was considered "not welcome". Afterall whilst i have perhaps made a few comments that one could consider rude i do not believe i have been overly vulgar or have been posting insults just for the sake of insulting. I feel that i have always kept making my points clear and never tried to evoke a flame war or start one.

Now whilst i usually do not bother to much with trying to make 2nd accounts to go around this i found that the last had not been said regarding this debate and i would find it a shame to leave things as they were. Now whilst i might not agree with people i never hope to see people being stopped from speaking their mind and i often hope my opponents feel the same way.

[Fin]

Please respond how the new gained knowledge that you have obtained regarding the exsistence of sharia laws in the UK makes you feel. How do you feel regarding the UK allowing Sharia law to operate.

the same way I feel about the fact that Jews are allowed to operate their own religious courts. Good luck and have fun. none of my god damn business.

The law is the law it's as simple as that. We have a system of laws and rules and it is simply the best system in the entire world. Something as barbaric as Sharia law should not even be permitted in modern society. Who cares if it's like judge judy? We allready have a system of laws and it works and it protects the right of the defense and the prosecutor. It takes into account what the truth is and is precided over by highly trained judges who try to work out what is justice and it all works fine. We have no need for sharia law and it simply should not be permitted.

Obiously the muslims feel that your justice system is not greatest in the world, and feel that sharia court provides them better justice. Good for them.

This is the west and here we have our own value's and ideal that differ from those in other parts of the world like the middle east. Why must we in the west sell out our ideals to a muslim minority and permit them to go around our system of law? We shouldn't adapt to them because they are living in OUR part of the world. They are more then welcome to live here aswell but that means they have to obey to our rules and our laws. If you have people over in your house those people still have to follow your rules.

Considering that Sharia courts are perfectly legal and do not break any brittish laws, I suggest you stop screaming "CALIPHATE IS COMING !! HIDE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE CALIPHATE!!". That shit might work in forums like Stormfront, but not here.

And if sharia law is really that important then they have the right to go and live somewhere where they practice this brutal form of law. But if they consider economic security is more important then sharia law then they sharia law they can live all the days of their lives here. In the west we have a rule of law and we have all kinds of ideals and value's that suit us and that have grown over the ages. If people like those ideals they can come and live here, but if they don't, then why live here in the first place?

1.Belive it or not, but people dont immigrate to other countries simply because they like the "ideas " or "values" of the said country.
2.Once again, sharia law and jewish law are both legal in UK. "they" arent seeking to destroy "your" legal system, they just prefer a diffrent one.

You have a great deal of freedom in where you choose to live and people should go and live in places that THEY like. They shouldn't live in europe because of our great economy but then start to change the foundation of our countries. Sharia law does not belong in the west and should never have been allowed in the first place.

people have immigrated ever since the dawn of time to places where they could make more money. take an USA for an example. Sure "Land of the free, home of the brave" sounds all nice and dandy, but lets fucking face it. most came there originaly for the money.

On a different note you stated that the sharia courts only count when both sides agree to it but that still doesn't change anything. Integration does not work as well as in Europe as it does in America. Many groups still cluster around their own groups and remain in those circles so it also suits to logic that these people would choose to have their disputes solved by a sharia law court. These courts however have time and time again been shown to put women on 2nd place. We don't let everyone have their own form of law, we have our own system of law and anyone that comes to live here should do so realising that this system of law is the one we are all governed by

As long as people who use it are happy...

Whilst i might have been saying "You" i don't literally mean you because as you stated you are pro-choice and you support homosexuals so ofcourse this doesn't really apply to you as much. My points have mostly been against people that vote religion, aka vote what their church tells them to or votes on what they see as the most religious candidate or the candidate that furthers their religious agenda the most. I find those people to be a destructive force in a democracy because there are so many things that are more important then religious subjects yet there are a great deal of people that do not care for those and only seek to further their own agenda.

In the end of a day people make their own decisions. Religious organisations are powerful voting block because their members agree with them on things like gay marriage. Cant we just say "These people are asshats, but this is how things work in democrazy", and not "The religion it self must be a fucking stupid"?

Btw you do realise that you want minorities in "West" (muslims) to adjust to your life style, while at the same time demanding that majority of people in USA (who do not agree with same sex marriages) should just bend over and let gays ( a minority) have their way?

Why do i post under such a peculiar name, good question. It appears my opinions are not welcomed by some mods or one mod, i could not say. Clearly i have been found in violation of the rules even though i tried to go over each post i made time and time again in an effort to make sure i wasn't personally atacking anyone. Perhaps i slipped up and did infact insult someone for the sole purpose of insulting someone.\

I simply wanted to state that i find it sad that i have been banned because i can't help but feel that i have been banned based on my content rather then my behaviour. I have taken part in a few debates here in this section and i have come across members that have been ten times more vulgar and personally offensive against me but also against others, but never did those people ever receive a warning let alone a ban.

I can't help but shrug the feeling that by taking a rather controversial stand against religion and things like sharia law that i have been banned because my viewpoint was considered "not welcome". Afterall whilst i have perhaps made a few comments that one could consider rude i do not believe i have been overly vulgar or have been posting insults just for the sake of insulting. I feel that i have always kept making my points clear and never tried to evoke a flame war or start one.

Now whilst i usually do not bother to much with trying to make 2nd accounts to go around this i found that the last had not been said regarding this debate and i would find it a shame to leave things as they were. Now whilst i might not agree with people i never hope to see people being stopped from speaking their mind and i often hope my opponents feel the same way.

This is a private forum. "Freedom of speech" does not apply in here.

[Dohregard]

A clever dodge but surely i cannot continue to entertain you with this joust of words if you only want to ask questions and never respond to my posts. I made a point and i find it almost rude to simply ask a question rather then to respond. It makes me wonder should i in the future make more elaborate responses if all i can expect is you dodging the point and trying to throw it on a diffrent track.

I've found every single post you've made pointed, brash and "rude", so how asking quesitons on a subject that we almost agree on a bad thing? What purpose would of me saying "you've got the right idea, but you're going about it all wrong" over and over again be? I've already told you this, so I believe its now your turn to justify your fanatical views.

Please respond how the new gained knowledge that you have obtained regarding the exsistence of sharia laws in the UK makes you feel. How do you feel regarding the UK allowing Sharia law to operate.

From what I've read, only people who are willing to continue being in said religion has to follow their laws. Why should a government interview when someone is willfully following their own religious practices?



P.S. you were suspended for this

The hacker files have been shown to be faked. They did steal the mails but they edited them to make them seem like something they were not.

You have to be REALLY stupid to believe that the entire scientific community had been involved in a conspiracy theory.

Back into your mom's basement conspiracy trolls, false alert.


Let's see who has the balls for saying sorry and admiting they were wrong in believing this bullshit.

warned and suspended for 72 hours for flaming in the debate section. Your account says 2005.. so obviously it's been around long enough to read the rules and the debate section header.-ThE_MarD

Edited by Dohregard, 29 November 2009 - 01:30 AM.

[Riddle]

This question has probably been asked before. For religious people, how do you validate the claims made in religion , ie the existence of a god/s and what makes you think that what you believe in is true?

[CORNELIOUS THE CONQUEROR]

This question has probably been asked before. For religious people, how do you validate the claims made in religion , ie the existence of a god/s and what makes you think that what you believe in is true?

If a priest tells me that god is real then i accept what the priest says because it doesnt matter. in the unlikely event that a priest says "god is real and god wants you to kill ppl" then it is different, because i must then make a decision

Edited by CORNELIOUS THE CONQUEROR, 22 December 2009 - 08:03 PM.

[Dohregard]

If a priest tells me that god is real then i accept what the priest says because it doesnt matter. in the unlikely event that a priest says "god is real and god wants you to kill ppl" then it is different, because i must then make a decision

"God is real and he doesn't want you to fornicate until you are married"

"God is real and he doesn't want you to drink alcohol or use any other mind altering substances (including caffeine)"

"God is real and he wants you to hate gay people"

"God is real and he wants you to try to convert other people to Christianity"

"God is real and he wants you to give me money"

"God is real and he wants you to give up and not question the world around you"


being affiliated with a religion means you're making a decision to believe, don't be a sheep and not know who your master is.

Edited by Dohregard, 23 December 2009 - 12:55 AM.

[CORNELIOUS THE CONQUEROR]

"God is real and he doesn't want you to fornicate until you are married"

"God is real and he doesn't want you to drink alcohol or use any other mind altering substances (including caffeine)"

"God is real and he wants you to hate gay people"

"God is real and he wants you to try to convert other people to Christianity"

"God is real and he wants you to give me money"

"God is real and he wants you to give up and not question the world around you"


being affiliated with a religion means you're making a decision to believe, don't be a sheep and not know who your master is.

your priest sounds like an idiot.


this is debate section, any more crap like this and you'll get a warn- techno-ninja

Edited by techno-ninja, 23 December 2009 - 03:25 PM.

[dvide]

If a priest tells me that god is real then i accept what the priest says because it doesnt matter. in the unlikely event that a priest says "god is real and god wants you to kill ppl" then it is different, because i must then make a decision

Would you not agree that "it doesn't matter" is not a good validation of a claim? That is, it doesn't help to establish whether the claim is true or not. I'm also curious why you choose to believe those claims that don't matter as opposed to choosing not to believe in them. Either way seems completely arbitrary and especially so if it doesn't matter anyway.

Edited by dvide, 23 December 2009 - 09:09 AM.

[Riddle]

If a priest tells me that god is real then i accept what the priest says because it doesnt matter. in the unlikely event that a priest says "god is real and god wants you to kill ppl" then it is different, because i must then make a decision

You still have not answerred my question. How does ur priest validate the claim that god is real? What evidence does he have supporting the claim?

Edited by Riddle, 23 December 2009 - 09:12 AM.

[CORNELIOUS THE CONQUEROR]

You still have not answerred my question. How does ur priest validate the claim that god is real? What evidence does he have supporting the claim?

Hey im not a priest so those questions dont concern me. I guarantee that if you politely approach a priest and enquire about his faith he'll be happy to talk to you. Infact you dont even have to personally approach him. All you have to do is attend a chuch service (anyone can) and listen to what hes saying.

Would you not agree that "it doesn't matter" is not a good validation of a claim? That is, it doesn't help to establish whether the claim is true or not. I'm also curious why you choose to believe those claims that don't matter as opposed to choosing not to believe in them. Either way seems completely arbitrary and especially so if it doesn't matter anyway.

Given the circumstances I think that it would be an excellent validation -of my actions-. I think my analogy is a good example of being prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. This is an attitude which I guess most religious people live by.

[Dohregard]

Given the circumstances I think that it would be an excellent validation -of my actions-.

No, you would just rather not think about what your religion wants you to do because you would rather live your own life over actually practicing your religion.

I think my analogy is a good example of being prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. This is an attitude which I guess most religious people live by.

So you'd rather not think about what your religion is trying to say you should do?

[dvide]

Given the circumstances I think that it would be an excellent validation -of my actions-

I'm sorry but I'm trying to understand. What circumstances and actions are you referring to? I think I understand what you're saying... that beliefs influence your actions? This is true, but what do you use to validate your underlying beliefs? How do you ensure that, to the best of your ability, they are consistent with reality?

I think my analogy is a good example of being prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. This is an attitude which I guess most religious people live by.

I wouldn't use the term benefit of the doubt here, because to me that relates to issues of trust rather than abstract truth claims. But I will use a quote from Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". As an example, if I told you I went to the shop today you would have no reason to doubt me because it is a very mundane claim. However, if I told you I flew to the shop today by flapping my arms I would guess you would not give me the benefit of the doubt. You would require rigorous evidence to convince you. Even if I could provide CCTV footage of my journey you would probably suspect it of being doctored.

If the claim came from your priest would it have any more validity?

Edited by dvide, 23 December 2009 - 05:00 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

I would say that religion is more personal than people make it out to be. I disagree with some things that a lot of catholics believe, but I still consider myself a catholic (and know many others like me). In the middle ages the church was a much more our way or ur out kind of thinking. They've become much more tolerant on things that are more open to interpretation.

Religion should be between you and whatever dictates your religion. It should not be dependent on the organization that represents the religion. One of my teachers once called this being a "buffet catholic" (using catholic because it's what she said) in that you take all the bits and pieces of the religion that you want and leave the rest. As long as you stay true to what you believe, I'd say that's the best way. For example, I believe that you shouldn't have sex without love (not without marriage), and I believe that whole heartedly. I have, however, had sex without love, and I still find that to be a mistake on my part. I didn't alter my beliefs to form to my lifestyle, they are just what I believe regardless of whether or not I live by them.

This is not to say that I wouldn't like myself more if I lived by them.

To summarize, religion should be personal and you should solidify your beliefs on a personal level. No person or organization other than you should dictate what you believe. Your membership in those organizations should be because you believe what you do, you shouldn't believe what you do because you're a part of those organizations.

[CORNELIOUS THE CONQUEROR]

I'm sorry but I'm trying to understand. What circumstances and actions are you referring to?

its really really simple.

Given the circumstances I think that it would be an excellent validation -of my actions-.
If a priest tells me that god is real then i accept what the priest says because it doesnt matter

I think I understand what you're saying... that beliefs influence your actions? This is true, but what do you use to validate your underlying beliefs? How do you ensure that, to the best of your ability, they are consistent with reality?

maybe I am saying this but this is not what I mean to say. Now I dont know what youre referring to regarding my underlying beliefs

I wouldn't use the term benefit of the doubt here, because to me that relates to issues of trust rather than abstract truth claims.

ok

But I will use a quote from Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

To me theres nothing extraordinary about the comment 'god is real', its just a comment.

As an example, if I told you I went to the shop today you would have no reason to doubt me because it is a very mundane claim. However, if I told you I flew to the shop today by flapping my arms I would guess you would not give me the benefit of the doubt. You would require rigorous evidence to convince you. Even if I could provide CCTV footage of my journey you would probably suspect it of being doctored.

what makes this difficult is that its such an obscure reference. i dont care if you went to the shop today, and id care equally so if you say you'd done so by flapping your hands. flapping ur hands is maybe a little more interesting, of the two maybe id like to believe that more, but at the same time I make sure u dont get any of my personal details.

If the claim came from your priest would it have any more validity?

im not writing about a specific priest, I write about a priest. but basically youre asking me to imagine an incredible scenario so id have to play it as it comes

maybe way2lazy will have better addressed ur questions

[Riddle]

To summarize, religion should be personal and you should solidify your beliefs on a personal level. No person or organization other than you should dictate what you believe. Your membership in those organizations should be because you believe what you do, you shouldn't believe what you do because you're a part of those organizations.

Supposed I believed in fairy-tales, that Shrek is real. Would anyone take me seriously? Of course not. Yet religion with its claim that god is real dictates the way we live (at least for religious people).

Your membership in those organizations should be because you believe what you do, you shouldn't believe what you do because you're a part of those organizations.

Im assuming you, like many other roman catholics go to church from a very young age. Am I wrong to say the church teaches you to be afraid of god from a very young age. Fear is a powerful tool, it makes people fall into line moreso little children. Some are emotionally scarred for life so much so that they are too afraid to explore the truth be it from inside religion or outside.

So how do you know what you believe in is the truth if you have not fully validated the claims? (If you have done some validation, please provide us with your experience.) As personal as religion can be, you cant go around believing in blind faith. Because then it's just a matter of what pleases you or what makes you happy and no longer about seeking the truth.