Reasons not to believe in God

[Balerion]

For those who don't already have faith in God, yes.

If God would really love me or want me, then why have me be born outside of religion and without faith in Him?

I think if you really want an honest answer to that question, you need to be open to the idea that God might not be real.

 

[wynn]

as I said, I can't answer that since its not applicable to me or most people I know ..... but from what I understand its never the case that one "begins" spiritual life by taking birth in an already spiritual family.

No, you say it begins by subjecting oneself to a spiritual master.

How one can choose the right one - that's just putting the cart before the horse.

 

[wynn]

I think if you really want an honest answer to that question, you need to be open to the idea that God might not be real.

Or to the idea that we are not all equal, and that some people are forever cut off from (personal knowledge of) God.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

When you get right down to it, no one needs a reason not to believe in god.

Quoting passages from the bible, commenting on world events and speculating on how god could allow the things men do, is all just fluff disguising a great anger at Him and a certain petulant rejection that he doesn't care as much as you do.

Those who actually don't believe in god, simply don't.

At last, a well expressed and accurate remark.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

If the publically open existence of your God poses some kind of dictaorship or enslavement of human beings, then that's a problem with YOUR belief in a God. It merely provides us with another good reason not to believe such an absurd proposition: the very existence of an omnipotent being constitutes a violation of free choice for humans.

The point I was making was not to put God down, but the basic problem with mankind repeating the same problems as we already have. regardless of what utopia may come.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

The reason we've never seen a society rise with no conception of god is because atheism as an intellectual position is a relatively new phenomenon. In that sense, the idea of belief as a default is in some ways true; we tend to be superstitious, and so in absence of knowledge we will substitute myth.

What we have seen is a society founded on philosophy rather than mythology. Western society is secular. Its principles and practices are based on reason and concepts of justice rather than faith. This is what human societies going forward will tend to look like. Religion may always persist, but it will never control society the way it once did.

The beginning of atheism was known about 1700 years before, and what's next about 1900 years ago. Religion will control society like it never has before. What people need to know, is if it is false or not. My post is not really in keeping with the thread, just thought I'd let you know beforehand.

 

[Balerion]

Or to the idea that we are not all equal, and that some people are forever cut off from (personal knowledge of) God.

In order to reach that conclusion, one would have to already believe that a god exists. Do you intellectually believe a god exists? If so, then maybe that's your answer. If not, then I see no reason to assume that you're some lesser being just because you don't feel the impulse to believe. Sounds like masochism to me.

To the point about equality, I mean, we obviously aren't all the same. If we were, then Hawking would be no big deal, and LeBron James wouldn't make tens of millions of dollars per year. But he is, and he does.

 

[Balerion]

The beginning of atheism was known about 1700 years before, and what's next about 1900 years ago.

I know the history of atheism. I'm talking about atheism as a mainstream, sound intellectual position. There have always been reasons to disbelieve, but today we can debunk just about everything any mainstream faith claims, leaving there no reason to believe whatsoever. Atheism is actually the only logical position one can hold. Everything else is either ignorance or delusion.

Religion will control society like it never has before. What people need to know, is if it is false or not. My post is not really in keeping with the thread, just thought I'd let you know beforehand.

I'd love to see the extra-biblical sources you base that on. I mean, the US--which is the last great pious nation of the west--is becoming less and less religious, and even most Muslim majority nations have secular governments. The days of monotheism as this hugely influential force are nearly over.

 

[wynn]

Thats basically the essence of kannistha-hood

I would agree however that all organized theisms have at the very least the potential to develop a strong kannistha element

And you'll probably suggest that it is not possible to skip the phase of kanisthahood, and that one just has to endure an unforeseeably long phase of living a leap of faith.




AND TO THIS, TO POINT OUT A CONTRADICTION IN YOUR APPROACH:

That is an example of the ascending process.
The ascending process has its uses but as far as the perfectional level of religious practice goes, it will not help one.

IOW there are constitutional aspects of being conditioned and limited that render the process ineffective.

In the vaisnava version of that sutta the elephant hunter would be talking about what he has heard about elephants from others in the field, as opposed to being the self-affirmed expert already at the perfectional stage of knowledge

That is the "Vaisnava version" - ie. for people who are already Vaisnavas.

If you believe that religious choice is a legitimate phenomenon, and that it is undertaken by free will, then you have to agree that religious choice is an ascending process:
the person who is about to exercise religious choice, considers themselves a self-affirmed expert already at the perfectional stage of knowledge as he takes for granted that he is able to recognize "the right religion."

If one is born into the Vaisnava system, then I suppose one can take the "descending" process.

That rules out me and about 80% of the people I know so I cannot answer that question

Of course you can answer: you did it, and so did the 80% of the people that you know.

And as you have described religious choice so far, you took the ascending process, considering yourself a self-affirmed expert already at the perfectional stage of knowledge as you took for granted that you are able to recognize "the right religion."


The contradiction is on your part, because you preach the descending process, but endorse the ascending process for choosing (!) that descending process!

A real submission to a descending process would be for a non-religious person to patiently wait and hold off religious choice until God Himself would give them a calling.


Chances are that many devotees, including yourself, join for entirely non-theistic reasons (such as being too bored with ordinary run-of-the-mill life, liking the music and dancing, having a romantic interest in a devotee, being overcome by a leader's charisma, being too poor and too weak to make it in the secular world, etc.),
and it is only in hindsight that you dress up the act of your religious choice into more theistic-looking garbs.

If you would say "I liked it there so much that I couldn't stay away" or "I felt God wanted me to join" or "I felt I had nowhere else to go" or some such - no problem. It may not sound particularly rational or responsible or mature, but it is probably much closer to the truth.
But the moment you venture into trying to explain and justify religious choice in a more philosophical manner is the moment you venture into full-blown atheism or solipsism, and a number of contradictions.

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "God works in mysterious ways." But if one shies away from admitting it (and instead does philosophy) because one fears it will make one look dumb in some people's eyes - then one is apparently looking for safety and approval not from God, but from people.

 

[wynn]

In order to reach that conclusion, one would have to already believe that a god exists. Do you intellectually believe a god exists? If so, then maybe that's your answer. If not, then I see no reason to assume that you're some lesser being just because you don't feel the impulse to believe. Sounds like masochism to me.
To the point about equality, I mean, we obviously aren't all the same. If we were, then Hawking would be no big deal, and LeBron James wouldn't make tens of millions of dollars per year. But he is, and he does.

My point is that for some people, this life as they have may simply be "as good as it gets." Maybe some people will always be miserable. Maybe some people aren't actually persons, but only have the illusion of being persons, while others are persons. Maybe those who aren't really persons are a kind of sparring-partners for those who are persons.

If God, or evolution, can make rabies and parasites that infest the brain, the eyes or the heart - then what would they not do?

 

[Balerion]

My point is that for some people, this life as they have may simply be "as good as it gets." Maybe some people will always be miserable.

If you're not happy, I think you're barking up the wrong tree by searching for a connection with a being that may or may not actually exist. Finding God isn't going to solve your problems anyway. If you've got no reason to be depressed, then it's probably a chemical imbalance that requires medication. Maybe you need therapy. Maybe you just need to change your routine, or get a new job or career. The idea that God = happiness is one that's only ever going to disappoint you.

Maybe some people aren't actually persons, but only have the illusion of being persons, while others are persons. Maybe those who aren't really persons are a kind of sparring-partners for those who are persons.

And maybe we're all living in the eye of a giant. What's the point in even considering such depressing ideas?

If God, or evolution, can make rabies and parasites that infest the brain, the eyes or the heart - then what would they not do?

If you're upset that life is cruel, get in line. It's a cold fact that can't really be spun positively. But you can accept it and get on with your life.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

I pointed out that it was irrelevant if there is a pattern because such a pattern would require a Creator God to have chosen to make it appear as though he simply was not involved in our evolution.

And my point is that as you don't actually know whether mutations occur randomly, or are pattern base. It is pointless speculating on what a ''Creator God'' may or may not have ''chosen'' to do. If an intelligence IS involved, then there is more likely to be a purpose or direction to such a pattern, at least from both our experiences of intelligence.

When I said "thief," it was in humor. Sometimes my quirks don't always go over well when I don't use tongue out emoticons and the like.
So- sorry if that came across wrong

The old, ''I'll kick him while (I think) he's down, but say it was a joke if I get busted, routine''?
Don't worry, we're in battle.

I accept your apology.

Why a ''far-fetched assumption''?

I've outlined why several times- including above.
Refer above and ask if you need clarification.

That answer is unsatisfactory as it assumes your explanation is correct. You've been shown, and accept, that mutations being random is only so as far as the current understanding of mutations, and that work is being done which may contradict that claim. This means there are professional, scientific minds out there, who aren't satisfied with the current understanding, or, they have stumbled upon something indirectl,y which may have triggered the possibility.
Either way, it is not to be accepted as the be all end all of knowledge regarding mutations.

To posit that if God is behind the patterns in mutations, then He does so in an effort to mask His existence, is devoid of logic, and rationale, given our own intelligence, and experience of other intelligences.

1.) There is no evidence of any intelligent pattern. Acting as though you've suddenly proven or even implied any intelligent pattern is absurd.

You don't know if there is or isn't evidence of intelligent pattern, and you only accept randomness because you don't know any better.
Furthermore you needn't believe wholeheartedly, either conception, because both have equal possibility of being correct without spin.
If however there is a pattern to it, then we can assume intelligence.
The trouble is, you've already accepted that intelligence does not play a role, and even if it did, it's role is to make us believe there is no intelligence, therefore it's as good as random.

2.) If it was established that there was a pattern, it would show that something was causing a pattern, not necessarily intelligence.

Okay, now you've upgraded your package.
Simple patterns can be caused by random processes, but complex patterns such as cells?
Our experience shows that complex information comes from intelligence.

3.) If it was established that there was an intelligent pattern, it would not demonstrate the God of the Bible or ANY major religion, excpet maybe some forms of Hindu...

That's like saying that the BBT (if it were true) came about through science.
If you read the bible carefully, there are signs of the same God, or Godliness.
The Bible isn't that kind of a book (Bhagavad Gita...). It's about the two major bloodlines that are ruling today.
It does contain spiritual truths, or what I call spiritual truths, which are more detailed in the various forms of Hindu scripture, but the intention behind how it was put together, is not for the purpose of teaching the world how go back to God and resume that natural position of part and parcel of Him. IOW, it doesn't deal with sanatan-dharma.

4.)There is no side-stepping. You asked "what if there's a pattern?" - You established nothing. The thing is, there still is no evidence of a Creator God.

Quit being so defensive, I never tried establish anything.
And if God exists, then everything is evidence. How can it not be?
The thing is, we have decipher what is real and what is false.

And it gets to that point where after he's been removed further and further from observation - why bother trying to believe anymore when it then becomes insane rationalization, instead of faith

That's the funny thing, you can't remove God, anymore than you can remove your father. Sure you can hate him, you can cut him out of your life, you can forget him, but denial of him is incredibly foolish. The same with God.

Ummm, no... They hatch from observed fly eggs. Your rather silly attempt here is to say that because ignorant people made crude observations and then leapt to fantastic conclusions that somehow, observational evidence does not have merit.
By your reasoning, all police detectives must be absurd

There's nothing silly about it. Those people were the cutting edge of scientific knowledge, in their day, just as some scientists are now.
They weren't ''fantastic'' conclusions, and the evidence was sound. They just didn't have the knowledge, and the same can be said of today, and tomorrow. Learning from the ground up, means we will never come to the end of knowledge.

The knowledge that detectives seek, is not the same as knowing everything.

1.) This demonstrates an invented God, based on the wants of the believers. The description of him evolves over time, depending on whose opinion describes him. An Omniscient and Omnipotent God, as described that declares what human behavior should be would not evolve in that manner- if he changed at all.

God's existence does not rely upon description of Him.
God doesn't declare what ''human behaviour'' should be if you're not a devotee.
Even in the Bible, Jesus sasy ''give unto Ceasar what is his''.
Also, he doesn't try convert the devils offspring (or what he sees as that devils offspring).
Did he try to change Judas, knowing his character?

2.) Evolution, well supported by an extensive fossil record, genetics and demonstrated confirmation of such show a complete lack of intelligent design

Supported by people who think like you. Professionals who don't have hell to pay, on earth. The film ''No Intelligence Allowed'' shows this.
I bet you're going to say those people aren't true scientists, or they don't understand evolution.

3.) Cosmology has demonstrated that many of the old ideas are wrong and BBT/Cosmology demonstrates a lack of intelligent design to the Universe. The best a creationist can do is point to the Event prior to BBT and claim that is God. To have God removed to 14 billion years ago and lacking ever since is too absurd to me.

There are scientists who disagree, so why bother to even bring this up.
Science cannot show ''a lack of intelligent design'', you have to infer it.

4.) Psychology of claims: People observe that they feel is validation for their belief, such as a baby surviving an earthquake while ignoring the many babies that did not survive. Validation of belief is shown to be rather heavily biased and absurd. Personal accounts of "feeling Gods Love" etc are nothing more than wishful thinking; the individual takes any concept to validate their belief whether it actually has merit or not.
Because of this complete lack of evidence for the Divine or supernatural; one must conclude that either God keeps it hidden to test our faith or there is

It didn't occur to you that the woman whom you mentioned earlier that killed her son, was not religious, or killed him out of some kind of mental imbalance (very common psychological reasons for this type of behaviour).
Because the words ''quran'' and ''satan'' were mentioned, you automatically assumed religion was at the heart of it.
I'm quite sure you don't view ''women'' the same way you view religion, yet how many murders are caused by men, because of women.

Are you suggesting that if someone does not believe in what you believe that they must be "cold?"

No. You're jumping to conclusions again.

You don't know my life's story and I'm not going to dump it all out on this thread. You made an assumption- it's better that you avoid those assumptions.

I don't need to know your life's story. You didn't need to tell me about your life's story when you were writing about ''random mutations'', did you?

What conclusion have you reached, apart from expressing the modern atheist spiel?

That there is no Divine, supernatural God or other fictitious/fantasy creatures

I guess the question went straight over your head, huh?

If I say I have an invisible elf in my backyard and you do not believe there is one, I might challenge you to prove that there isn't one.
Since it's an invisible elf with no evidence that he is there, you have no reason to believe that he is there. Whatever you do, I can explain away your failures to prove he isn't there. You cannot prove a negative.
An agnostic might conclude, "Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't."
An atheist would conclude, "There is no reason to believe there is, so I won't bother with it."
A believer would conclude, "There must be one or this guy wouldn't be so adamant, I must accept his word that he knows something I do not. Perhaps, one day, that elf will show himself and prove all the doubters wrong."

If you think this is the same thing, then you're not fit for a conversation like this.

jan.

 

[wynn]

That is an example of the ascending process.
The ascending process has its uses but as far as the perfectional level of religious practice goes, it will not help one.

IOW there are constitutional aspects of being conditioned and limited that render the process ineffective.

In the vaisnava version of that sutta the elephant hunter would be talking about what he has heard about elephants from others in the field, as opposed to being the self-affirmed expert already at the perfectional stage of knowledge

And one more thing about this, so that you don't develop more inadequate notions of Pali Canon Buddhism:
Read the sutta in full.

The Buddha there actually describes a descending process, as he lays out what the qualifications of the Buddha are and what qualifications a person must have in order to recognize the Buddha.

In that sense, Pali Canon Buddhism is a self-referential system too.

However, the qualities that that Buddhism instructs that one ought to develop, generally seem like good, worthy qualities, qualities that will serve one well, no matter what, even if the Buddha had never existed or wasn't enlightened.

 

[kx000]

just because you don't feel the impulse to believe. Sounds like masochism to me.

This is offensive. Faith can not be impulsive.

 

[kx000]

There have always been reasons to disbelieve,

A dis-faitful universe represents no reason. How do you reason where faith (what we BELIEVE IN) is wrong? I have incredible faithful skills including miraculous high jump kicks and the pipes of a golden god.

but today we can debunk just about everything any mainstream faith claims,

I am Faith of Love. I claim a natural God who is Love, my father.

Atheism is actually the only logical position one can hold.

Atheism is uneducated or a lie.

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly, And my point is that as you don't actually know whether mutations occur randomly, or are pattern base. It is pointless speculating on what a ''Creator God'' may or may not have ''chosen'' to do. If an intelligence IS involved, then there is more likely to be a purpose or direction to such a pattern, at least from both our experiences of intelligence.

Wow, the way you build one wild conclusion on top of the next...
Well, first establish that there is some mythical pattern that no one can see. Then you can speculate as to what it means.

The old, ''I'll kick him while (I think) he's down, but say it was a joke if I get busted, routine''?
Don't worry, we're in battle.

Hadn't even thought of it that way but if that's how you want to take it- feel free.

Either way, it is not to be accepted as the be all end all of knowledge regarding mutations.

It isn't. It's not the only way mutations occur- I have pointed this out myself on deeper discussions of evolution. However, it is the primary reason. That is why the "Millions of years" factor.

To posit that if God is behind the patterns in mutations, then He does so in an effort to mask His existence, is devoid of logic, and rationale, given our own intelligence, and experience of other intelligences.

Agreed. Only other logical conclusion is: There is not God.

Okay, now you've upgraded your package.
Simple patterns can be caused by random processes, but complex patterns such as cells?
Our experience shows that complex information comes from intelligence.

Sigh... see my post above addressed to Wynn in which I actually took the time to explain Emergence. I'll link it. Post 88

That's like saying that the BBT (if it were true) came about through science.

No it isn't in any way at all. I said nothing at all of the kind. You're making zero sense.

The thing is, we have decipher what is real and what is false.

Some of us are better at that than others.

That's the funny thing, you can't remove God, anymore than you can remove your father. Sure you can hate him, you can cut him out of your life, you can forget him, but denial of him is incredibly foolish. The same with God.

Nonsense. God is not my father, no matter how indoctrinated you are to believe some invisible sky daddy made you. See above about Emergence. You're just trying to claim that I hate God to rationalize how you cannot understand how I could disbelieve in the existence of such an absurdity. No, I don't hate God at all- there simply is no God.

There's nothing silly about it. Those people were the cutting edge of scientific knowledge, in their day, just as some scientists are now.

No, they weren't. You have no clue what you're talking about.
The Spontaneous Generation Myth was known to be a myth invented by ignorant clods. Ancient philosophers, like Aristotle liked the idea and promoted it.
Aristotle was not a scientist at all. He was a philosopher that believed that no method of observation was necessary except to think over a problem.

God's existence does not rely upon description of Him.

Dunno why... it's the only existence of him we can find...

God doesn't declare what ''human behaviour'' should be if you're not a devotee.

It's also said that all must come to him and none shall reach except through his son. It's said that any that do not follow his instructions will burn for an eternity in hellfire. So, tell me, how that is not declaring what behavior should be... No- don't bother.

The film ''No Intelligence Allowed'' shows this.
I bet you're going to say those people aren't true scientists, or they don't understand evolution.

Exactly. They don't understand evolution. It's well know they lied and used deceptive tactics and trickery to even make the film.

There are scientists who disagree, so why bother to even bring this up.
Science cannot show ''a lack of intelligent design'', you have to infer it.

Call it what you will, there's a lack of Gods hand, whichever way you examine it.

It didn't occur to you that the woman whom you mentioned earlier that killed her son, was not religious, or killed him out of some kind of mental imbalance (very common psychological reasons for this type of behaviour).
Because the words ''quran'' and ''satan'' were mentioned, you automatically assumed religion was at the heart of it.
I'm quite sure you don't view ''women'' the same way you view religion, yet how many murders are caused by men, because of women.

A crime of passion, if you will.
I can agree to that. I would, however, point out she was influenced by her beliefs... Strongly. Let me show you how strongly... Scroll down to where Yasin addresses me. Post 105

No. You're jumping to conclusions again.

Funny that coming from you.

If you think this is the same thing, then you're not fit for a conversation like this.

The conversation is the reasons some people do not believe there is a God. Hate to bust it to ya but ummm, you're the unfit one, here.

 

[The Marquis]

Heh.
Before he converted, CS Lewis was an avid atheist, and in his own words, "angry with God for not existing."

Geeser got it.

Besides which, an avid response is an uncertain one.

 

[cole grey]

Oh, here comes the straw man. I didn't say there weren't metaphors in the bible. I said that I haven't heard a good metaphorical alternative for the creation story. But since people have been doing this for centuries, it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide even one of those alternatives now. Preferably the one you subscribe to.

ask the catholics - they have a whole giant system of churches and a guy in a big hat who supposedly wears an apostle's ring, that have made it their understood reality that evolution occurred. Maybe the pope has a good metaphor for various aspects of the creation story! You speak of this story that "describes" the creation as if ideas of a higher power, or of man's inherent propensity to f* up weren't happening. These are real ideas, whether or not the perspectives of the bible offer something close enough to objective truth to be called, "the best those old nomads could come up with". You are taking the idea that these scriptures are not useful to YOU, (remember that because that is what you have, something that doesn't give YOU good metaphors, it is already shown that it is useful for billions), and somehow using that as a reason for EVERYONE to toss them out. That is not reasonable.

Oh nonsense. Without a claim to creation, God would have no claim over humans, and therefore no authority to dictate the rules. It's the basis for man's dominion over the earth, as well as a male's dominion over woman.

Man controls the earth, as much as we can say it CAN be controlled, with God or without God. You cannot dispute that. A text asking for responsibility would be highly useful in our current age of limitless destructive potential if only we had one. ** there is one incredibly important and useful metaphor, that we have responsibility towards the earth. ** Men dominated women in all historic ages, whether by force or economy. Men have liked to keep it that way apparently, so the idea that the material body (the distinguishing difference between man and woman in the creation story) is what is important, as opposed to the breath of life (whatever that is), has been upheld. ** there is another hugely important metaphor of the many in the creation story. Choose to ignore it, but it is a very good one, and quite important to basic human rights. The value of the "soul".**

I never said it was. I said the non-literal interpretation robbed the faith of its core concept.

it robs it of a concept for YOU that you are not using anyway. Your level of projection of what is the core concept of christianity, and that it is lost by a non-literal interpretation of creation, is as narcissistic as a baby on this matter.

That's fine and true enough, but Little Red Riding Hood does not mandate faith in a higher power, so the analogy falls down. If Christianity were merely a philosophy rather than a religion, that would be one thing.

spurious. Meaning is meaning. Somebody could use grimm stories to infer a higher power if they wished, and i'm sure many cultures have done basically that throughout history, when those cultures didn't have a bible or quran or whatever. What you continually point out in your posting is that YOU are some sort of judge of meaning or truth. Narcissism. Did you miss the 19th and 20th centuries? Philosophy generally runs on a model of valuation of subjective material. Show me the actual LOGIC, not just how your readings don't support x, or your philosophy doesn't support x, and ESPECIALLY not science demonstrates x about some scientific principle that is already accepted by mainstream non-liberal christians.

More nonsense. Without a basis in reality, there's nothing to believe in, and thus no religion. Yet we both know that people who believe in God do so literally. I mean, you're not about to tell me you don't literally believe in God, do you? And you base that belief on the foundational texts, do you not? Of course you do. So at some point in your life, you took those words to be literal truth. Maybe you don't anymore, but then I don't really believe that's true, either. I'm sure you do believe the bible at the very least represents the truth, and that God really did create the world. You may now say that it could just be morality tales, but I think you're simply paying it lip service. Or maybe your'e not, and you retain your belief in the way Pascal did.

in many of it's stories, the bible does not represent accurate scientific data as far as i know, but neither is it simply a set of morality tales. It "represents" truth in the limited way higher understanding can be represented, in that, as you gain understanding, the stories change. One guy reads the creation story as a license to dump toxic waste, another as prohibiting that. You read the bible in the first sense and condemn it. I read it in the second sense and praise it. Your insistence on yours as the accurate reading is narcissistic and unsupportable. My only insistence is that the bible CAN be read my way, which is entirely supportable and non-narcissistic. So my idea is more reasonable, and more supported by modern thought that objective truth is not easily attainable.

No, but it means that the stories do not represent whatever that "thing" is (or isn't) and is nothing more than superstition.
You're mistaking the ignorance that makes us susceptible to superstition for the actual basis for a belief in a particular faith. Unless you're suggesting that we only believe in a given religion because it got to us before the others did...which actually makes sense. Hey, maybe you're onto something!
But in saying that, you're left with nothing of substance. In other words, your Christian faith is superfluous and incidental, and therefore meaningless.

Let's say i shout, "there is a big monster in the other room, run!". Now let's say there is a bear in the other room. I certainly would not be WRONG to shout that. The SUBSTANCE is exactly what was delivered, and the "superfluous and incidental" was the color of it's eyes, or the fact that it is called a "bear" by some people.

The "thing" is superstition. If the sum of your claim is "I'm superstitious," then you'll get no challenge from me. It's when you say "I'm a Christian" that I have questions. But you've just admitted that you're not really a Christian, but a superstitious person who believes the first thing that comes along.

I think that "bear" is real, and i call it "God", although at times in my life i would have said the "bear" wasn't real. So you say it is superstition, and i say it is something else. Because you say it is superstition, i am changed by your magic words? Your level of narcissism is incredible.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

A crime of passion, if you will.
I can agree to that. I would, however, point out she was influenced by her beliefs... Strongly.

She may well have been influenced by her beliefs, but tell me how you know she believes in God?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

kx000,

Modern atheism is ''educated lie'',according to link.

jan.