Hypocrites.

Smau5

My mother is a devoted christian,
I don't believe in God, any God.

Out of the blue, she criticized science, saying that the whole big bang is bull.

I replied asking how can she be so hypocritical?

You believe that a entity with the body of a man (because supposedly God created me in his image) was walking around in the dark, he saw that there was darkness so he made light.

"Saw a void" so he made mountains, then went on to create animals, plants oceans, etc.

All in 7 days?

Created germs, diseases, blood cells, metals, gases, viruses, chromosomes, DNA etc?

Flamed Diving

She probably doesn't know what the "big bang" actually means. Argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. Although even (in my experience) when Christians have this topic explained to them, they continue to misrepresent it in the old way. Regular posters in this forum can think of a few usernames...

However, if she genuinely has the wrong idea of the big bang (something from nothing) then I wouldn't say it is hypocritical of her. She is just calling a distortion bull, not the theory itself. Perhaps try to explain to her what the "big bang" (i hate this term) actually means.

Xluna

Some people are so strongly indoctrinated into religion that can't discern fantasy from reality.

krudler

I love this, the idea that life came from nothing is bull, but a magic man in the sky who created the world in 6 days, which must have been knackering as he needed a day off at the end, is completely plausible? The bible has more plot holes than a Michael Bay movie ffs

smurgen

what annoys me the most is the mental gymnastics most believers use to reconcile all of thier beliefs with reality.Instead why don't they just use Occam's razor to cut through all the crap?

Stercus Accidit

krudler wrote: »

I love this, the idea that life came from nothing is bull, but a magic man in the sky who created the world in 6 days, which must have been knackering as he needed a day off at the end, is completely plausible? The bible has more plot holes than a Michael Bay movie ffs

This feels dirty to say, but I'd prefer a michael bay movie over the bible.

recalls transformers 2

Eh, maybe not.

Goduznt Xzst

smurgen wrote: »

Instead why don't they just use Occam's razor to cut through all the crap?

... because Occam's Razor doesn't give them a solution to their crippling fear of death and that of their loved ones.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

roosh

Smau5 wrote: »

You believe that a entity with the body of a man (because supposedly God created me in his image) was walking around in the dark, he saw that there was darkness so he made light.

Just to play devils advocate. Do you know for certain that she "believe that a entity with the body of a man", or is this just your personal interpretation of what her perception of God is?

Also, the notion that "God created man in his image", must mean that God has the body of a man is somewhat erroneous, as it could mean that it was the process of creation that was actually mirrored, as opposed to the physical attributes.

roosh

krudler wrote: »

I love this, the idea that life came from nothing is bull, but a magic man in the sky who created the world in 6 days, which must have been knackering as he needed a day off at the end, is completely plausible? The bible has more plot holes than a Michael Bay movie ffs

Again, just to play devil's advocate, where does this notion of "a magic man in the sky" actually come from?

Dades

mangaroosh wrote: »

Again, just to play devil's advocate, where does this notion of "a magic man in the sky" actually come from?

Bronze Age Middle Eastern men. Though plently of other cultures came up with some similar concept.

Goduznt Xzst

mangaroosh wrote: »

Again, just to play devil's advocate, where does this notion of "a magic man in the sky" actually come from?

Why do you think it is that short children in schools will threaten others by saying they will get their big brother to come and beat them up, when they don't have a big brother at all? Of what use is it to them to do so?

toiletduck

It's probably best not to argue with your parents (especially your mother :eek: ) about this kinda stuff. Not only will it lead nowhere, but if your Mother is as devoted as you say then she's likely to see your non-belief as some failing on her part as a parent to pass on the faith which will just lead to more fighting and arguments.

roosh

Dades wrote: »

Bronze Age Middle Eastern men. Though plently of other cultures came up with some similar concept.

Is there any example of where God is actually depicted as being male and living in the clouds though, or is this more of a misrepresentation of certain claims/statements?

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

Is there any example of where God is actually depicted as being male and living in the clouds though, or is this more of a misrepresentation of certain claims/statements?

Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, I'm sure there are others. I dont think christianity itself says god looks like an old man in the clouds, but osmosis from the description of Zeus and Jupiter as a white haired old man and the fact that gods voice is described as coming from the clouds at certain times in the bible (I think, anyway) leads to the general idea.

Flamed Diving

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, I'm sure there are others. I dont think christianity itself says god looks like an old man in the clouds, but osmosis from the description of Zeus and Jupiter as a white haired old man and the fact that gods voice is described as coming from the clouds at certain times in the bible (I think, anyway) leads to the general idea.

Well the Christian Church adopted many pagan symbols and ideas in order to market their religion to the Romans and Greeks. For examples, halos were abound in pagan Roman art, and when Christianity arrived these halos seemed to fit very neatly onto Jesus' head. Very neatly indeed.



Jesus or Apollo?

Gurgle

http://www.pocm.info/
Plenty more there.

krudler

mangaroosh wrote: »

Again, just to play devil's advocate, where does this notion of "a magic man in the sky" actually come from?

Plenty of religous iconography to choose from..

Flamed Diving

Gurgle wrote: »

http://www.pocm.info/
Plenty more there.

Quite. I can hear the apologists now. Trying to link these observations to the various Zeitgeist-esque conspiracy junk that floats around cyberspace, and therefore waving it away as some childish nuisance while ignoring the academic field of Art History as if it didn't exist.

:rolleyes:

krudler

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Quite. I can hear the apologists now. Trying to link these observations to the various Zeitgeist-esque conspiracy junk that floats around cyberspace, and therefore waving it away as some childish nuisance while ignoring the academic field of Art History as if it didn't exist.

:rolleyes:

You can say the same about the Jesus/Horus comparisons:

Born of a virgin: check
Baptised in a river: check
Tempted while walking in the desert: check
Healed the sick and blind: check
Walked on water: check
Raised the dead: check
had 12 disciples: check
crucified: check

Christianity has taken a ton of stuff from other, earlier religions and adapted them to its own ideas

Turtwig

krudler wrote: »

You can say the same about the Jesus/Horus comparisons:

Born of a virgin: check
Baptised in a river: check
Tempted while walking in the desert: check
Healed the sick and blind: check
Walked on water: check
Raised the dead: check
had 12 disciples: check
crucified: check

Christianity has taken a ton of stuff from other, earlier religions and adapted them to its own ideas

Ugh,

Delete that post..:mad:
Zeitgeist is more idiotic and dishonest than most religions.
Delete it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

krudler

Malty_T wrote: »

Ugh,

Delete that post..:mad:
Zeitgeist is more idiotic and dishonest than most religions.
Delete it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope

Flamed Diving

Zeitgeist is economics/theology/political science for the hopelessly lazy.

roosh

Do those who believe in God, still have a conception of God as a man on a cloud?

I have started a thread in the Christianity forum to get a better idea of what peoples personal understanding of God is, but I would question whether or not it is of a man living in the clouds.

As far as that hypothesis of God goes, I would say that it is safe enough to consider it debunked. However, it is seriously questionable to assume that because this particular conception of God is debunked, that God is debunked.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

Do those who believe in God, still have a conception of God as a man on a cloud?

I very much doubt it

mangaroosh wrote: »

As far as that hypothesis of God goes, I would say that it is safe enough to consider it debunked. However, it is seriously questionable to assume that because this particular conception of God is debunked, that God is debunked.

That entirely depends on what you mean by god. I don't know if it ever be possible to debunk "god" because the word has millions of different definitions. How would you define the word?

bnt

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Zeitgeist is economics/theology/political science for the hopelessly lazy.

Do you mean the film Zeitgeist? I haven't seen it, but what does it have to do with this topic? The similarities between the Jesus and Horus myths didn't come from a film, they've been around for far longer than that. There's a book, for example, from the 1870s: The Horus myth in its relation to Christianity by Cooper, W. R.

Also: around the time Christianity was invented, about 1,900 years ago, the cult of Mithras was kicking off in Rome and its occupied territories (including Palestine). Mithras seems to have aspects of Horus, but there are some remarkable coincidences between Mithraism and early Christianity, such as ritual breaking of bread, the importance of "mystery", and preaching of sermons. (More here.) Mithras was, at times, represented as Sol Invictus, the figure in the mosaic that Flamed Diving posted above. It's tough finding original information about this on the Internet, since a search is likely to return Apologetics pages attempting to debunk the connection - a sign how much concern it raises among Christian scholars, perhaps?

Flamed Diving

It seemed like you were going down the Zeitgeist path. I have no doubt that there is legitimate literature connecting old religions to Christian traditions, but many have been spoiled by that film.

Goduznt Xzst

Malty_T wrote: »

Delete that post..:mad:
Zeitgeist is more idiotic and dishonest than most religions.
Delete it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stephen Fry agrees with it though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo

wait until the end

Turtwig

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Stephen Fry agrees with it though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo

wait until the end

I'm open to the idea behind Mithras,it doesn't the change my opinion that the egyptian God Horus having the same characteristics as Jesus is pure baloney.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That entirely depends on what you mean by god. I don't know if it ever be possible to debunk "god" because the word has millions of different definitions. How would you define the word?

as such I think that God is beyond mental abstraction, or beyond definition, to a greater degree than anything else. It is more meaningful, I believe, to discuss the nature of what God is, as opposed to attempt to develop a definition that attempts to encompass something which cannot be defined completely.

This statement usually leads to a discussion about the nature of words and definitions, where the point must be made that words are ultimately meaningless in and of themselves, but as conceptual labels for other things, they act as a description or a signpost that points to something more real. Just as Newton's theory of Gravity is not actually Gravity itself, but rather a description that explains how the force of Gravity works and points to the "thing" that is the force of Gravity, the word God points to what God is.
Therefor in one sense, God as a concept does not exist and is indeed the creation of mankind, however that to which the word God points does exist.

Therefore a description of God is all that can ever be hoped for, a description that points to something more real, that ultimately has to be experienced in order to be fully understood. Similar to the analogy of sex, where a description of sex points to something more real, and where the description can only be meaningfully interpreted through direct personal experience.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

as such I think that God is beyond mental abstraction, or beyond definition, to a greater degree than anything else. It is more meaningful, I believe, to discuss the nature of what God is, as opposed to attempt to develop a definition that attempts to encompass something which cannot be defined completely.

well as long as you keep your idea of god ill defined and vague, you're absolutely right that it will never be disproven. You can't disprove something if you don't know what it is you're supposed to be disproving. You have a very nice and philosophical idea of god but such a god is intimately irrelevant to our existence unless his nature can be defined beyond "something more real, that ultimately has to be experienced in order to be fully understood".

mangaroosh wrote: »

however that to which the word God points does exist.

Except you can't quite tell us what exactly the word god points to.

Turtwig

Concept matters more than the words used to name it.

Rob, Sam, you guys are usually good at pointing out the terms that represent these kinda ideas/terminologies...:)
I'm sure this kind of idea or thinking has a name to it?

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

Concept matters more than the words used to name it. I'm sure this kind of idea or thinking has a name to it?

Hmm... the Socratic method or just "rational debate"?

The opposite is sophistry, where words pretty much mean whatever you want them to mean during a debate. The objective being to beat, frustrate or just bamboozle the other side, rather than to engage in any serious joint exploration of the topic.

Plato explored the idea at length in his Georgias, named for one of the earlier and more long-winded sophists whose method consisted of getting people to agree with some obvious idea, then subtly twisting the meaning of the words and thoughts involved in an attempt to get them to agree with whatever he wanted them to agree with.

bnt

Cool - hadn't seen that either. Fry wasn't citing Zeitgeist, was he? He was talking about research from 1903, he said.

I've gone and downloaded the book I mentioned earlier (Cooper, 1877), and while I don't have time to read it all before the Solstice, it looks to be quite open-minded, and includes written responses from various religious figures disagreeing with him. ("Religious", in 1870s England, doesn't include anything but Anglicans, of course.)

While looking for images, I also found an online version of an 1883 book with the following unwieldy title:

THE NATURAL GENESIS:
OR SECOND PART OF A BOOK OF THE BEGINNINGS,
CONTAINING AN ATTEMPT TO RECOVER AND RECONSTITUTE THE LOST ORIGINS
OF THE MYTHS AND MYSTERIES, TYPES AND SYMBOLS, RELIGION AND LANGUAGE,
WITH EGYPT FOR THE MOUTHPIECE AND AFRICA AS THE BIRTHPLACE.

which also looks interesting. It has the image I was after, the Egypto-Gnostic Horus: standing on a crocodile ... with a halo, and holding a fish:


From the text (end of Book 7):

This engraving has been called Jesus Christ in the character of Horus, but it is simply the Egypto-gnostic Horus, the Christ who was first born as the fish of the perfected solar zodiac in the year (or thereabouts) BC 255. The facts are visibly depicted in the celestial imagery; and the type has been continued, for example, in Japan, where the birth of a child is still publicly announced by the villagers under the sign of the fish—a typical paper fish being suspended over the doorway of the house wherein the child has been born[316]. Also [p.455] in modern rites of the Jewish Passover, Leviathan and the fishes are connected. Leviathan is a form of the dragon of darkness which has been vanquished by the sun in Pisces ever since the crossing occurred in that sign, over two thousand years since, when the fish-type succeeded that of the lamb. The final facts are that Christ, as the ram, dates from BC 2410. Christ as Ichthys, the fish, dates from BC 255. Christ, in the human form upon the cross, dates from the seventh century, AD. This is the gnostic Christ, the Egyptian Horus who for thousands of years had been represented in the act of treading the crocodile under foot, and who is here portrayed as the youthful sun-god representing the sun of the vernal equinox in the sign of the Fishes.

Why don't they teach this stuff in school, eh? :pac:

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well as long as you keep your idea of god ill defined and vague, you're absolutely right that it will never be disproven. You can't disprove something if you don't know what it is you're supposed to be disproving. You have a very nice and philosophical idea of god but such a god is intimately irrelevant to our existence unless his nature can be defined beyond "something more real, that ultimately has to be experienced in order to be fully understood".


Except you can't quite tell us what exactly the word god points to.

certain parameters need to be set out before a more detailed discussion can take place on the nature and existence of God. The afore mentioned points are some of those.


Also, as has been mentioned, God is beyond definition, so it is understandable that this could be construed as an attempt at being vague, however it may be useful to conduct a simple exercise.

Firstly, if you would give your definition of what a "cup" is, then we can see how difficult it is to give an all encompassing definition, that perfectly captures the essence of what cup is, and that allows a person to understand all cups, for something infinitely easier to define.

It should become clear that the mental image evoked as a result of the definition, will probably not be of all cups that ever were and ever will be.


Secondly, could you describe a personal experience you have had recently. If we take something simple and non-evasive, such as a walk to the shops, and describe it to me, in such a manner that will allow me to fully understand what your experience was like.

With this it should become clear that describing an experience is quite difficult without attempting to draw on the listeners own personal experience as a reference. Even then, it is doubtful that the description will be adequate to truly convey your own personal experience.



This is just to highlight the issue of attmempting to define something accurately, or even provide an accurate description of something, without the benefit of personal experience. This is true for something as simple as describing a walk to the shops, as it is for describing the experience of God.


Certain characteristics that I would probably use when describing God would be Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, creator of the universe, residing in "the kingdom of heaven", which is, as Jesus said (or as is attributed to him) "within us".

Zillah

Smau5 wrote: »

My mother is a devoted christian,
I don't believe in God, any God.

Out of the blue, she criticized science, saying that the whole big bang is bull.

I replied asking how can she be so hypocritical?

You believe that a entity with the body of a man (because supposedly God created me in his image) was walking around in the dark, he saw that there was darkness so he made light.

"Saw a void" so he made mountains, then went on to create animals, plants oceans, etc.

All in 7 days?

Created germs, diseases, blood cells, metals, gases, viruses, chromosomes, DNA etc?

I fail to see how this is hypocritical.

Ignorant, irrational and short-sighted perhaps.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

Firstly, if you would give your definition of what a "cup" is, then we can see how difficult it is to give an all encompassing definition, that perfectly captures the essence of what cup is, and that allows a person to understand all cups, for something infinitely easier to define.

Bad example. It would be difficult to give a single definition that would accurately describe the many things that carry the label cup but god is not many things, god is one thing (I think your definition has it as one thing anyway). Describing one particular cup is a trivial task. In a similar way, one definition would struggle to describe the physical characteristics of "human beings" but would not struggle to describe those of John smith

mangaroosh wrote: »

Secondly, could you describe a personal experience you have had recently. If we take something simple and non-evasive, such as a walk to the shops, and describe it to me, in such a manner that will allow me to fully understand what your experience was like.

With this it should become clear that describing an experience is quite difficult without attempting to draw on the listeners own personal experience as a reference. Even then, it is doubtful that the description will be adequate to truly convey your own personal experience.

A walk to the shops is a personal experience. Of course it's difficult to describe it without referring to the personal experience you are attempting to describe
Another pretty bad example. On the other hand if you were to describe all of the objects on the way to the shops, that is not subjective and is not dependent on personal experience

mangaroosh wrote: »

Certain characteristics that I would probably use when describing God would be Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, creator of the universe, residing in "the kingdom of heaven", which is, as Jesus said (or as is attributed to him) "within us".

Now we're getting somewhere. If something is omnipresent, it seems contradictory to say it resides in the kingdom of heaven. Surely it resides everywhere?

Then there are the contradictions between omnipotence and omniscience

And of what relevance is this being. You've decided that something created the universe and lives outside it (or undetectably within us?). So what? What difference would it make to my life if this were true?

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Bad example. It would be difficult to give a single definition that would accurately describe the many things that carry the label cup but god is not many things, god is one thing (I think your definition has it as one thing anyway). Describing one particular cup is a trivial task. In a similar way, one definition would struggle to describe the physical characteristics of "human beings" but would not struggle to describe those of John smith

That is to assume that God is not everything existing as one.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A walk to the shops is a personal experience. Of course it's difficult to describe it without referring to the personal experience you are attempting to describe
Another pretty bad example. On the other hand if you were to describe all of the objects on the way to the shops, that is not subjective and is not dependent on personal experience

Apologies, I thought I had made it clear that it was to be described, without asking the listener to refer to their own personal experience as a means for understanding the description. This is to give some idea where the difficulty would lie in someone who has had a spiritual experience, trying to explain it to someone who has not. The ability to rely on the others experience as a means for interpretation is not possible.

It must again be advised, not to interpret what a spiritual experience might be, according to one's own subjective description.

As with the above example, even if one was to describe all the objects on the way to the shop, it still would not substitute for the experience of walking to the shop.

Take any personal experience you would like, and try and describe your experience to another person and see how difficult it will be to accurately explain it, especially if the other person has not had a similar experience.

Alternatively put the shoe on the other foot, have you ever had someone try to explain an experience to you, of which you had no real frame of reference? It would not be possible to truly understand their experience.

This is merely meant to highlight the manner in which personal experience does not lend itself to rationalisation/explanation.

For example, if a woman were to explain her experience of childbirth to either one of us, or indeed to any male, we could not truly appreciate here experience, as we have no meaningful way of interpreting it. We can try and use our own personal experiences as reference points, but seeing as how they would be so unique from form the experience of childbirth, they would not be suitable to offer a true understanding of the experience.

Equally, try explaining the experience of getting kicked in the balls to a female, she will just never be able to truly comprehend it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere. If something is omnipresent, it seems contradictory to say it resides in the kingdom of heaven. Surely it resides everywhere?

It may appear contradictory, but it fully depends on the nature of "the kingdom of heaven".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then there are the contradictions between omnipotence and omniscience

That depends on one's understanding of both:

Oxford English Dictionary Online: Omnipotent:

Omnipotent /omnippt’nt/
• adjective having unlimited or very great power.



Oxford English Dictionary Online: Omniscient:
Omniscient /omnissint/
• adjective knowing everything.




There is no apparent contradiction there as one can have both unlimited power and know everything, in fact if the old addage of "knowledge is power" is followed, then Omnipotence and Omniscience almost become synonyms.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And of what relevance is this being. You've decided that something created the universe and lives outside it (or undetectably within us?). So what? What difference would it make to my life if this were true?

It has never been suggested that this being exists outside the universe, nor that it exists undetected within, in fact quite the opposite has been expressed, namely that this being can be directly experienced.

As to the relevance that it has to a person's life, or rather the perceived relevance it has, that has absolutely no bearing on whether the being exists or not.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Stephen Fry agrees with it though.

Fry is just sore because his former partner in comedy is raking in the millions as Gregory House while Fry has to slum it in debates with drunken slobbers like Christopher Hitchens.

Flamed Diving

There really is no price on dignity.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

Fry is just sore because his former partner in comedy is raking in the millions as Gregory House while Fry has to slum it in debates with drunken slobbers like Christopher Hitchens.

Hey! Hitchens might be a drunk, and he might be a slobber, but he is not a...wait what was the other thing you said?

Anyway, Fry and Laurie remain the best of friends to this day!

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

That is to assume that God is not everything existing as one.

That would make the term god meaningless. You keep using these grand philosophical terms that all sound great but are very vague

mangaroosh wrote: »

Apologies, I thought I had made it clear that it was to be described, without asking the listener to refer to their own personal experience as a means for understanding the description. This is to give some idea where the difficulty would lie in someone who has had a spiritual experience, trying to explain it to someone who has not. The ability to rely on the others experience as a means for interpretation is not possible.

It must again be advised, not to interpret what a spiritual experience might be, according to one's own subjective description.

As with the above example, even if one was to describe all the objects on the way to the shop, it still would not substitute for the experience of walking to the shop.

Take any personal experience you would like, and try and describe your experience to another person and see how difficult it will be to accurately explain it, especially if the other person has not had a similar experience.

Alternatively put the shoe on the other foot, have you ever had someone try to explain an experience to you, of which you had no real frame of reference? It would not be possible to truly understand their experience.

This is merely meant to highlight the manner in which personal experience does not lend itself to rationalisation/explanation.

For example, if a woman were to explain her experience of childbirth to either one of us, or indeed to any male, we could not truly appreciate here experience, as we have no meaningful way of interpreting it. We can try and use our own personal experiences as reference points, but seeing as how they would be so unique from form the experience of childbirth, they would not be suitable to offer a true understanding of the experience.

Equally, try explaining the experience of getting kicked in the balls to a female, she will just never be able to truly comprehend it.

I would agree with you that personal experience is very subjective but the examples you're using are woeful tbh. If you're describing a walk to the shops you might not get every single detail exactly right but you can get a pretty damn good idea. With childbirth and getting kicked in the nuts, again we can't all experience exactly those scenarios but we can all feel pain so again, you can get a pretty good idea. I'm all for experiences being subjective but you've taken it very far off the deep end tbh, to the point where it's pretty much impossible to live in a human society because you can't even know if you're imagining the person you're talking to or if they're imagining the story they're telling you

mangaroosh wrote: »

That depends on one's understanding of both:

Oxford English Dictionary Online: Omnipotent:

Omnipotent /omnippt’nt/
• adjective having unlimited or very great power.


Oxford English Dictionary Online: Omniscient:
Omniscient /omnissint/
• adjective knowing everything.




There is no apparent contradiction there as one can have both unlimited power and know everything, in fact if the old addage of "knowledge is power" is followed, then Omnipotence and Omniscience almost become synonyms.

One example of how they contradict is that if god is omniscient he cannot do something that he did not already know he was going to do, his entire existence is already mapped out and unchangeable so he can't be omnipotent

mangaroosh wrote: »

It has never been suggested that this being exists outside the universe, nor that it exists undetected within, in fact quite the opposite has been expressed, namely that this being can be directly experienced.

If this being can be experienced then it can be falsified

mangaroosh wrote: »

As to the relevance that it has to a person's life, or rather the perceived relevance it has, that has absolutely no bearing on whether the being exists or not.

That's true. My point is that if you conclusively prove that such a being exists then it will elicit a massive "so what" from me. It's like scientists discovering a new star a million light years away. It's all very well but makes no difference whatsoever to my life. You have to show that this being interacts with our lives in a meaningful, detectable and above all falsifiable way before its existence becomes relevant. It's not enough to say you personally experienced him because, as you have pointed out at great length, personal experience is extremely unreliable. You need externally verifiable evidence beyond the contents of your brain

midlandsmissus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

... because Occam's Razor doesn't give them a solution to their crippling fear of death and that of their loved ones.

Crippling fear of death ha!

I am saying this very sincerely, I have no fear of death whatsoever, and I never have. (I'm a Christian for those that don't know )

Zillah

Of course you don't, you believe you're going to magic happy land instead of actually dying.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Flamed Diving

Zillah wrote: »

Of course you don't, you believe you're going to magic happy land instead of actually dying.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Indeed. I liken absence of thanatophobia due to religious belief to spraying Glade all over a ****-covered room and then saying you don't detect any odour therefore the source must be gone.

I am quite certain of the finite nature of my existence. I had grappled with it in my early twenties, but now I completely accept it, without fear. In fact, I'm relieved! I mean, why on earth would you want to live for eternity? Is there a worse fate possible?

midlandsmissus

Zillah wrote: »

Of course you don't, you believe you're going to magic happy land instead of actually dying.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Zillah Oh but you are presumptious.

I was an atheist up until three years ago, and I was never afraid of death back then either.

So what's your analysis now

Are you still in Canada by the way?!!

Flamed Diving

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Zillah Oh but you are presumptious.

I was an atheist up until three years ago, and I was never afraid of death back then either.

So what's your analysis now

Are you still in Canada by the way?!!

But, eternity? You don't dread this?

midlandsmissus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But, eternity? You don't dread this?

No, well I'm not your average christian in that I believe in reincarnation. I believe Jesus was here as an important messenger that's why I call myself Christian if I have to give myself a label, but I have my own set of beliefs. I definitely believe in reincarnation, and that we are here to learn and experience as much in several different lifetimes in order to progress spiritually.

And that idea doesn't frighten me at all.

Flamed Diving

midlandsmissus wrote: »

No, well I'm not your average christian in that I believe in reincarnation. I believe Jesus was here as an important messenger that's why I call myself Christian if I have to give myself a label, but I have my own set of beliefs. I definitely believe in reincarnation, and that we are here to learn and experience as much in several different lifetimes in order to progress spiritually.

And that idea doesn't frighten me at all.

You know that's not quite what I meant. I don't think you are a Christian, either. I'm not sure you require labelling!

a5y

Smau5 wrote: »

My mother is a devoted christian,
I don't believe in God, any God.

Out of the blue, she criticized science, saying that the whole big bang is bull.

I replied asking how can she be so hypocritical?

Sorry to be a nit-picker here. Which specific meaning of hypocritical are you using here?

[from google [define:hypocrite]]

• "a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives"

• "someone who does not “practice what they preach’; someone who pretends to live by a set of values, but in fact does not"

• "characterized by attitudes commonly considered to be prevalent during the Victorian era, especially prudery or conventionalism"

midlandsmissus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You know that's not quite what I meant. I don't think you are a Christian, either. I'm not sure you require labelling!

I don't know what you meant. You said am I not afraid of the concept of eternity. I presumed you meant the traditional Christian belief of eternity in the afterlife, and I said I don't believe in that. Is that not what you were referring to?