Does Free Will Exist?

[Trailblazer]

As I keep saying, they are both mango-flavored.
They are exactly the same, in all respects.

Then why would it matter which one you pick?

 

[samtonga43]

It's not so much the actual choosing. It's more about what circumstance/s could have led to my choosing one rather than the other.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not so much the actual choosing. It's more about what circumstance/s could have led to my choosing one rather than the other.

Oh, okay...
I forgot the actual context of this conversation.

 

[Ancient Soul]

We were discussing "free will" which has nothing to do with inventing airplanes and curing cancer, so have no idea where that gigantic leap came from.

So I would prefer to stick to the issue of your statement of:

"No, animals do not have free will because they operate on instinct. Humans have free will because we have a rational mind, which is associated with the soul. Animals do not have a soul, they have an animal spirit."

Now again:

free will
n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

So I want to know what real life observations/facts you have to back up your claim. Because I just don't understand how people can NOT see that other creatures think and make choices all the time. It's like they are told something and believe that over what they see right in front of them. Like when a horse has an itch on his back that he cannot reach, so picks up a stick to rub the itch, that's clearly reasoning out a problem and coming up with a solution. It's not just "instinct" as other horses don't do that. Or the study done with some crows in a certain area that figured out how to crack open nuts by dropping them on the road for cars to break them open. Then figured out that it was safer to drop them in crosswalks so they could swoop down and eat the nuts while the lights were red and eat them in safety. Or any number of such events that show thinking and reasoning is involved, yet people believe the it's ALL "instinct" lie and just block all such events out of their minds.



I know that ALL living creatures/beings have souls or they would not be alive. And I know that for two reasons. The first being that God had shown me that during my childhood OBE/NDE. And the second being that I can perceive/feel the soul's energy in all living creatures.

However FYI - In the spiritual realm/heaven/"afterlife" there is no physical matter, so all entities and Deities exist as pure soul/spiritual energy without any physical form.

Animals do think and make choices but they cannot think in the abstract like humans do. Animals are mostly driven by instinct. Free will is not just about making choices, it is about making moral choices. Animals do not make moral choices. Animals do not choose to believe in God or not.

I think it is just a matter of semantics. All living creatures have a spirit but I differentiate spirit from soul in that only humans have a soul that can know and worship God and attain the presence of God. Other animals have no concept of God. It’s like this…

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 155-156​

That is also what I believe but I believe that soul takes on a form of some kind, which I call a spiritual body. That body is made up of elements that exist in the spiritual realm.

What do you mean by entities and Deities? Do you think there is more than one Deity?

You are again trying to change the goal post's position. We are discussing your statement of:

"No, animals do not have free will because they operate on instinct. Humans have free will because we have a rational mind, which is associated with the soul. Animals do not have a soul, they have an animal spirit."

Now I re-posted my statement that you replied to, complete with the definition of "free will". And there is nothing stated about making "moral choices" a requisite for having "free will". I even checked other "free will" definition sources and none of them supports your "moral choices" addition either.

And your referencing excerpts from your "religion" does not support your statement that ONLY humans have a soul, and animals have something lessor. Besides, I asked:

"So I want to know what real life observations/facts you have to back up your claim."

And did NOT ask for un-supported religious beliefs.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that you cannot blindly believe in ANY man made mythology/religion. Now I did finally get you to admit that animals CAN think. So that means they can MAKE CHOICES, the primary requisite for having "FREE WILL". So then if they can think, make choices, have free will, there is no reason to make the false proclamation that they do not have a soul.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are again trying to change the goal post's position. We are discussing your statement of:

"No, animals do not have free will because they operate on instinct. Humans have free will because we have a rational mind, which is associated with the soul. Animals do not have a soul, they have an animal spirit."

Now I re-posted my statement that you replied to, complete with the definition of "free will". And there is nothing stated about making "moral choices" a requisite for having "free will". I even checked other "free will" definition sources and none of them supports your "moral choices" addition either.

I do not go only by dictionary definitions of free will. I go by what my religion teaches about free will and it is the ability to make moral choices.
70: FREE WILL

I do not think animals have the ability to know right from wrong so they cannot make moral choices.

The soul is associated with knowing and loving God and since animals cannot know God I do not think animals have a soul. They have a spirit but that is not the same as a soul.
55: SOUL, SPIRIT AND MIND

And your referencing excerpts from your "religion" does not support your statement that ONLY humans have a soul, and animals have something lessor. Besides, I asked:

"So I want to know what real life observations/facts you have to back up your claim."

And did NOT ask for un-supported religious beliefs.

I cannot prove anything about the soul or free will by real life observations because these concepts are not provable. Different people have different understandings of their definitions and functions. If God created us with a soul and free will it is only logical that the answers as to what they are and how they function would be found in religion.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that you cannot blindly believe in ANY man made mythology/religion. Now I did finally get you to admit that animals CAN think. So that means they can MAKE CHOICES, the primary requisite for having "FREE WILL". So then if they can think, make choices, have free will, there is no reason to make the false proclamation that they do not have a soul.

But they cannot think abstractly the way humans can think. They cannot know God or make moral choices, both of which are associated with the soul and free will. When animals act they act on instinct. There is no evidence that they know right from wrong or choose between them. There is no evidence to show that animals can believe in God.

 

[Skwim]

It's not so much the actual choosing. It's more about what circumstance/s could have led to my choosing one rather than the other.

Why should we know?

(The following isn't directed specifically to samtonga, but to anyone curious as to what I believe he's driving at.)

The "puzzlement" you seem to be presenting here is that: There is the claim that: one "chose" X instead Y because to "choose" Y the chain of cause/effect events leading up to the moment of "choosing" would have to be different. But in the case of the two mango ice-creams, A and B, both are identical, so how could there have been any difference in the chain of cause/effect events leading up to the moment of "choosing," which made one pick mango ice-creams A rather than B?

If this is the dilemma you're proposing, the answer is easy: there had to be something different, even if it was an unconscious predisposition toward things that sat to the right of other things, or some other such trivial differentiating causal agent you're unaware of. If there wasn't I believe you would never make a "choice," but rather sit there until both melted into pools of mango slush.

To those of a free will bent, proposing that one picked mango ice-creams A rather than B because one's will was free to do so, still begs the question of why your will decided on A rather than B. Proposing that an answer like "I had the free will to do so," ends the discussion is a fools conclusion, as neat as it would be if it actually did so. But it doesn't. Once one tries to opt out of the "why" question with "through my free will," one is always left with the troublesome question "Why?" which doesn't admit the excuse "through my free will."

There's always a reason, and that reason is contained in all the relevant preceding causes/effect events that led up to the point of doing.

.



.

 

[Ancient Soul]

I do not go only by dictionary definitions of free will. I go by what my religion teaches about free will and it is the ability to make moral choices.
70: FREE WILL

I do not think animals have the ability to know right from wrong so they cannot make moral choices.

The soul is associated with knowing and loving God and since animals cannot know God I do not think animals have a soul. They have a spirit but that is not the same as a soul.
55: SOUL, SPIRIT AND MIND

I cannot prove anything about the soul or free will by real life observations because these concepts are not provable. Different people have different understandings of their definitions and functions. If God created us with a soul and free will it is only logical that the answers as to what they are and how they function would be found in religion.

But they cannot think abstractly the way humans can think. They cannot know God or make moral choices, both of which are associated with the soul and free will. When animals act they act on instinct. There is no evidence that they know right from wrong or choose between them. There is no evidence to show that animals can believe in God.

You just proved me right.

As I've been saying all along, you blindly believe what your religion has told you to believe, and refuse to even see what really happens in the world right before your very eyes.

Your religion has even made up their own self-promoting definitions that are not real definitions. And you cannot even see that the links you gave are only someone's OPINION, with NO direct reference to any scriptural writings. This is the same trick ALL religions use.

Many living creatures make real life free will choices all the time, including "moral" ones. I can see evidence of that because I can clearly see what is presented before me and am so NOT brainwashed to blank it all out as so many others do.

And can you see the irony in your statement of:

"I cannot prove anything about the soul or free will by real life observations because these concepts are not provable."

It's ironic because real life observations ARE way more provable than blindly believing what some man made religion tells you to believe. It's also ironic because you cannot even apply that same principle to your religion, yet you blindly believe it and are even trying to convince me it "proves" you right. How can you make that claim when none of what you presented from your religion is provable?

Living creatures make free will moral (right/wrong) choices all the time, mostly based upon empathy and compassion. I have seen proof of that. You can open your eyes and see it too.

 

[Trailblazer]

You just proved me right.

As I've been saying all along, you blindly believe what your religion has told you to believe, and refuse to even see what really happens in the world right before your very eyes.

I do not believe what it told me to believe, I believe what I have CHOSEN to believe.
I do not believe it blindly, because I went into it with open eyes.
I do not know what animals think and feel and neither do you.
You interpret what you SEE one way I and II interpret it another way.

Your religion has even made up their own self-promoting definitions that are not real definitions. And you cannot even see that the links you gave are only someone's OPINION, with NO direct reference to any scriptural writings. This is the same trick ALL religions use.

Any YOU cannot see that everything YOU HAVE is based upon YOUR OWN opinions.
I have scriptural writings but i did not post them to you because you do not like religion.
Clearly you are biased against religion so I am not going to try to convince you otherwise, as I am not in the business of convincing...
What are the REAL definitions, the definitions from a dictionary? The debate about what free will and whether we have it has been going on for millennia. A definition off the internet does not settle it. That debate is presently going on on my forum and another forum in that group. And you think you know the answer?

Many living creatures make real life free will choices all the time, including "moral" ones. I can see evidence of that because I can clearly see what is presented before me and am so NOT brainwashed to blank it all out as so many others do.

How can you SEE into an animals's mind? All you see is the behavior and then you make assumptions based upon that behavior. And then you think you know more than religions because you are not religious... Been there done that, it gets old. Nobody can know anything about God without the revealed religions, they just think they do...

That is absurd. If animals made moral choices with free will then they would be held accounable for their actions in a court of law.

And can you see the irony in your statement of:

"I cannot prove anything about the soul or free will by real life observations because these concepts are not provable."

It's ironic because real life observations ARE way more provable than blindly believing what some man made religion tells you to believe.

My religion is not man-made, it was revealed by God... Too bad you do not like it.
No, observations are just observations. They can be interpreted in many different ways.
You think you know what they mean, but you don't know.

It's also ironic because you cannot even apply that same principle to your religion, yet you blindly believe it and are even trying to convince me it "proves" you right. How can you make that claim when none of what you presented from your religion is provable?

I do not blindly believe in my religion, I believe it based upon evidence that it is true.
I am not trying to prove I am right. I am just trying to have a civil discussion, an exchange of ideas..

Living creatures make free will moral (right/wrong) choices all the time, mostly based upon empathy and compassion. I have seen proof of that. You can open your eyes and see it too.

No, they do not. Animals do not make moral choices. That is absurd and you won't get anyone to agree with that, religious or otherwise. Some animals have empathy and compassion, but they do not have free will..

A person only need a logical mind to know that animals do not have free will the way humans do, they do not need a religion.

“Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these.”
Do Animals Have Free Will?

 

[samtonga43]

Why should we know?

(The following isn't directed specifically to samtonga, but to anyone curious as to what I believe he's driving at.)

The "puzzlement" you seem to be presenting here is that: There is the claim that: one "chose" X instead Y because to "choose" Y the chain of cause/effect events leading up to the moment of "choosing" would have to be different. But in the case of the two mango ice-creams, A and B, both are identical, so how could there have been any difference in the chain of cause/effect events leading up to the moment of "choosing," which made one pick mango ice-creams A rather than B?

If this is the dilemma you're proposing, the answer is easy: there had to be something different, even if it was an unconscious predisposition toward things that sat to the right of other things, or some other such trivial differentiating causal agent you're unaware of. If there wasn't I believe you would never make a "choice," but rather sit there until both melted into pools of mango slush.

To those of a free will bent, proposing that one picked mango ice-creams A rather than B because one's will was free to do so, still begs the question of why your will decided on A rather than B. Proposing that an answer like "I had the free will to do so," ends the discussion is a fools conclusion, as neat as it would be if it actually did so. But it doesn't. Once one tries to opt out of the "why" question with "through my free will," one is always left with the troublesome question "Why?" which doesn't admit the excuse "through my free will."

There's always a reason, and that reason is contained in all the relevant preceding causes/effect events that led up to the point of doing.

.



.

Yeah, it's the pools of mango slush I'm concerned about. I froze, unable to choose. The ice-creams did not.

What a waste!

 

[ecco]

I do not go only by dictionary definitions of free will. I go by what my religion teaches about free will and it is the ability to make moral choices.

Darn Right! To heck with what words mean! Let's make up definitions like our god told us to do! That way we can keep up the inherent mystery of our religion.

I do not believe what it told me to believe, I believe what I have CHOSEN to believe.

Oh. It gets worse. Now you want to just go by what you choose to believe. So, the heck with knowledge. The heck with science. The heck even with religion. You just want to go by what you want to go by. So, when it comes to morals, it's Trailblazer's rules or it's Trailblazers rules.

I'm glad you cleared that up.

 

[ecco]

I do not blindly believe in my religion, I believe it based upon evidence that it is true.

You believe it based upon evidence that you believe is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: I do not go only by dictionary definitions of free will. I go by what my religion teaches about free will and it is the ability to make moral choices.

ecco said: Darn Right! To heck with what words mean! Let's make up definitions like our god told us to do! That way we can keep up the inherent mystery of our religion.

Did you miss that word “only?”

That means that I go by the dictionary definitions but I also go by how free will is further elaborated upon in my religion.
70: FREE WILL

Trailblazer said: do not believe what it told me to believe, I believe what I have CHOSEN to believe.

ecco said: Oh. It gets worse. Now you want to just go by what you choose to believe.

Context is very important:

Ancient Soul said: As I've been saying all along, you blindly believe what your religion has told you to believe, and refuse to even see what really happens in the world right before your very eyes.

Trailblazer said: I do not believe what it told me to believe, I believe what I have CHOSEN to believe.

What that means is that I use my free will to CHOOSE what to believe rather than doing what my religion told me to believe.

So, the heck with knowledge. The heck with science. The heck even with religion. You just want to go by what you want to go by.

That is a straw man. What I have CHOSEN to believe is based upon knowledge.

Where in there did you see the word “want?”

So, when it comes to morals, it's Trailblazer's rules or it's Trailblazers rules.

I do not make the rules, God makes the rules. I just “try” to follow them.

I'm glad you cleared that up.

So am I.

 

[Trailblazer]

You believe it based upon evidence that you believe is true.

Some things I know and some things I believe...

 

[Ancient Soul]

I do not believe what it told me to believe, I believe what I have CHOSEN to believe.
I do not believe it blindly, because I went into it with open eyes.
I do not know what animals think and feel and neither do you.
You interpret what you SEE one way I and II interpret it another way.

Thanks for proving my point yet again. That you blindly believe what your religion teaches you to believe, and so you "interpret" what you "see" based upon that instead of seeing what is really happening before you.

And BTW - actually I can read what most living creatures think and feel. It's on of the spiritual abilities/gifts that God had given me upon my return to this life.

Any YOU cannot see that everything YOU HAVE is based upon YOUR OWN opinions.
I have scriptural writings but i did not post them to you because you do not like religion.
Clearly you are biased against religion so I am not going to try to convince you otherwise, as I am not in the business of convincing...
What are the REAL definitions, the definitions from a dictionary? The debate about what free will and whether we have it has been going on for millennia. A definition off the internet does not settle it. That debate is presently going on on my forum and another forum in that group. And you think you know the answer?

Yes, the dictionary's definition is the UNIVERSAL bases for this "free will" discussion, not some pseudo definition that is not generally known about. There are lots of religions that make up their own definitions because they got nothing that fits accepted definitions.

How can you SEE into an animals's mind? All you see is the behavior and then you make assumptions based upon that behavior. And then you think you know more than religions because you are not religious... Been there done that, it gets old. Nobody can know anything about God without the revealed religions, they just think they do...

One of the first few things God taught me in the spiritual realm, what most call Heaven, is how to use the abilities of my soul. And one of those abilities is how to "read" the energy of another soul which tells me everything about them. So I have no need to rely upon false man made so-called "revealed religions" but instead rely upon what is actually presented right in front of me without any man made lies getting in the way of the truth.

What proof do you have that YOUR religion came from God? Almost all religions make that false claim, so THAT is what really gets old.

That is absurd. If animals made moral choices with free will then they would be held accounable for their actions in a court of law.

LOL

That's really moving the goal post w-a-y out there!

What did you have in mind, a Kangaroo Court?

I do not blindly believe in my religion, I believe it based upon evidence that it is true.
I am not trying to prove I am right. I am just trying to have a civil discussion, an exchange of ideas..

That's avoiding what you stated:

"I cannot prove anything about the soul or free will by real life observations because these concepts are not provable."

And then I asked you:

"How can you make that claim when none of what you presented from your religion is provable?"

Meaning that you deny real life observations because you claim they are "not provable", but blindly believe what your religion tells you to believe that is not at all provable because it's based entirely upon someone's opinion and nothing else.

No, they do not. Animals do not make moral choices. That is absurd and you won't get anyone to agree with that, religious or otherwise. Some animals have empathy and compassion, but they do not have free will..

A person only need a logical mind to know that animals do not have free will the way humans do, they do not need a religion.

“Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these.”
Do Animals Have Free Will?

Yes, you've made your opinion abundantly clear, but have not proven anything other than you blindly believe what your religion teaches over what happens in real life.

 

[Willamena]

You believe it based upon evidence that you believe is true.

That is adding a layer of belief on belief. Belief is the 'true' value applied to the proposition (in this case, the evidence). That value applied to belief becomes a redundancy.

 

[ecco]

Did you miss that word “only?”

That means that I go by the dictionary definitions but I also go by how free will is further elaborated upon in my religion.

That's the problem, isn't it? Most of us use dictionaries. You enhance words by what you believe your religion says. When you do that you become incomprehensible.

What that means is that I use my free will to CHOOSE what to believe rather than doing what my religion told me to believe.

That makes you absolutely the same as anyone else from any other religion. You pick and choose what parts to believe and what parts to take as allegory and what parts to completely ignore.

That is a straw man. What I have CHOSEN to believe is based upon knowledge.

That makes you absolutely the same as anyone else from any other religion. You choose to believe based on what you choose to consider knowledge.

Where in there did you see the word “want?”

See above.

 

[ecco]

Some things I know and some things I believe...

...and some things you believe you know.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thanks for proving my point yet again. That you blindly believe what your religion teaches you to believe, and so you "interpret" what you "see" based upon that instead of seeing what is really happening before you.

And BTW - actually I can read what most living creatures think and feel. It's on of the spiritual abilities/gifts that God had given me upon my return to this life.

I can see what is happening but I cannot see into the mind of animals.

You can believe whatever you want to because you have free will, but I do not believe whatever happened to you involved God because God never sends people back to this earth AFTER they die physically and their soul goes to the spiritual world.

Yes, the dictionary's definition is the UNIVERSAL bases for this "free will" discussion, not some pseudo definition that is not generally known about. There are lots of religions that make up their own definitions because they got nothing that fits accepted definitions.

I have no problem with the dictionary definitions of free will.

Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. https://www.google.com/search

What does having free will mean?

free will. The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. For many philosophers, to believe in free will is to believe that human beings can be the authors of their own actions and to reject the idea that human actions are determined by external conditions or fate. (See determinism, fatalism, and predestination.)
Free will | Definition of Free will at Dictionary.com

Note that it says humans... I do not see anything about animals in that definition.

One of the first few things God taught me in the spiritual realm, what most call Heaven, is how to use the abilities of my soul. And one of those abilities is how to "read" the energy of another soul which tells me everything about them. So I have no need to rely upon false man made so-called "revealed religions" but instead rely upon what is actually presented right in front of me without any man made lies getting in the way of the truth.

With all due respect, I do not believe that, it is just too far out in left field, and there is no evidence it really happened. Whatever happened to YOU is real for YOU, but you cannot expect other people to believe it because you cannot prove it.

What proof do you have that YOUR religion came from God? Almost all religions make that false claim, so THAT is what really gets old.

I do not have proof, nobody from ANY religion can prove it came from God, but there is evidence that INDICATES that the true religions did come from God.

LOL

That's really moving the goal post w-a-y out there!

What did you have in mind, a Kangaroo Court?

Funny.... If there was one I would put these raccoons that live on my deck on trial for climbing up on the table and eating the cat food.... They really do not need to do that since we feed them an ample amount of dog food.

I never did the actual math, but I would be willing to bet that we spend almost as much money on food for animals, indoor and out, as we do on food for ourselves.

That's avoiding what you stated:

"I cannot prove anything about the soul or free will by real life observations because these concepts are not provable."

And then I asked you:

"How can you make that claim when none of what you presented from your religion is provable?"

Meaning that you deny real life observations because you claim they are "not provable", but blindly believe what your religion tells you to believe that is not at all provable because it's based entirely upon someone's opinion and nothing else.

Firstly, my religion does not TELL ME to believe anything, I freely choose to believe what I do.

Secondly, I can observe things in real life but what I conclude is highly subjective so I cannot PROVE that my conclusions are accurate. But those raccoons sure seem to be acting on instinct. It is not like they have a CHOICE once they start fighting.... Did you ever try to break up a raccoon brawl? Of course lots of people also act on instinct instead of using their mind and free will.

In the case of religion, the “somebody else” is not just another human being, it is a Manifestation of God who received His knowledge from God, and THAT is why I believe what was revealed in the religion.

Yes, you've made your opinion abundantly clear, but have not proven anything other than you blindly believe what your religion teaches over what happens in real life.

My religion does not teach that animals do not have free will, I concluded that myself with logical reasoning. If scientists could prove animals have free will I would believe it but otherwise I have no REASON to believe it.

Animals certainly do have thoughts and emotions and a mind of their own, but that is not the same as thinking through things and making a choice... They just go for the food when they want it or don’t go for it if they don’t want it. They do not think to themselves as humans do and say “gee, should I go for that food or not?”
Well, I take that back.... I put the food down and one of the cats was thinking it over just now... I could tell... And then she went for the food.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's the problem, isn't it? Most of us use dictionaries. You enhance words by what you believe your religion says. When you do that you become incomprehensible.

Not if you can comprehend the further elaborations.

That makes you absolutely the same as anyone else from any other religion. You pick and choose what parts to believe and what parts to take as allegory and what parts to completely ignore.

I do not ignore anything in my own religion and I believe all of it. I have to figure out which parts are allegorical but that is not too difficult since Baha’u’llah did not talk in riddles like Jesus.

That makes you absolutely the same as anyone else from any other religion. You choose to believe based on what you choose to consider knowledge.

And so? That does not MEAN that my religion is the SAME as all the other religions just because I relate to it the same way.

 

[Trailblazer]

...and some things you believe you know.

Yep, that is a good way of putting it.