Why should I feel under attack?
It's pretty much standard when you're talking about a group of people in a way that could be seen negatively. If you sat in a room full of Africans and gave a speech on how black people smell, they too would feel like they were under attack. But nevermind, this isn't important - well certainly not as important as the rest of the paragraph that you ignored.
Very wrong. I am the average joe, and it was simple to find god. I just let god come into my life
When, where, how, influences etc etc. Details are important. Saying "I just" doesn't have any value.
and you claim that people need some type of tragedy for this to happen, when I did it without any tragedy
Or brought up religious, as I mentioned.
Oh really? Then explain to me what chemicals do this and how.
mis-t-highs has kindly done that on page 2.
----------
Well, if we have to go by the cosmology of the Aztecs and the builders of Stonehenge, the geometry of the Egyptians and Babylonians, or the rationality of the Greeks, we in no greater mental shape unless you start out with the assumption that atheism is the pinacle of mental maturity. No doubt they were also 6 year-olds once, who then grew into adulthood and emotional maturity just as we do.
I don't really understand the value of this in regards to what I was saying. Do you regard the ability to lump rocks on top of each other - even to a great degree of accuracy - as having a lot of knowledge about the world? Do you consider minotaurs as one symbol of "Greek rationality"?
These people would have been more out of place than people of today that have a lot more answers and a lot less struggles. Go back time and gods are dime a dozen, and yet I can't really think of anyone who in recent years has invented/found a new god.
In the same way that childrens imaginary beings will resemble something familiar to them, we see exactly the same with gods. Snake gods in South America, elephant gods in India, crocodile gods in Egypt, and a crucified hippy at the time when crucifying hippies was a common event.
Not to mention that the assumption is that you have personally shed the impulses that makes 6-year olds invent imaginary friends.
Not at all, I just deal with the issue in a different manner. Please note that not every child has an imaginary friend - they deal with their issues in different ways, of which some will create imaginary friends. Some people will drink, some will eat loads and then puke, and some will attach themselves to imaginary friends - regardless of their age.
Research shows that most children who have these friends are just as well-adapted and socially aware as those who don't
Certainly, they just deal with their issues in another way.
And is this desire natural or not? Why, unlike any other living organism, do we feel so out of place in ourselves that we have to compensate for it?
Because we have the ability to question? Neither a week old child or a week old rabbit understand why they need to consume food. If they then sat down and questioned it, they would expect to find an answer for that question. How do they find the answer? One would typically bring parents into the equation, but doesn't the question go beyond that? Doesn't that question continue indefinitely? It's quite normal that at the end of the picture you conjure up a father that made it that way.
Last I knew, other living organisms didn't have this ability, and thus you wont find any religious ones. However if they could, it would stand to reason that their beliefs would entail a giant animal who's image they have been made in, and that their bad gods would be like their natural enemies.
If it really was more realistic to accept our insignificance and the sad state of affairs, why doesn't our reason agree?
We don't accept it, and we have things that do indeed make our lives better and more worthwhile. This differs for everyone, it could be the internet, the television, going out clubbing, enjoying a weekend beer, masturbating, praying to the sky. The list is endless.
Is inconvenience any measure of reality? "The more inconvenient, the more real"? Or does your criticism not apply to yourself, that because you have come to grips with life this way and not that way, it must be the right way? Is it only true if it hurts, and obviously false if it makes sense?
No. As I said, I deal with the issues in a different way. The only thing that really bothers me is that I wont be alive to see men exploring space to any great degree.
Let me make it clear that you can believe in whatever you want, but that I'll tell you it's not real, the same way you'd tell an alcoholic that drink is no good for him. Sure, he'd argue back aswell, but that wouldn't change the reality of it, now would it?
Take a close look at your own argument. You suppose our cognitive dissonance should remain visible, or we are under an illusion, but you cannot account for the dissonance.
I'm sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say. Kindly rephrase it.
Belief in God often becomes stronger after one has come to grips with one's circumstances
Certainly, in much the same way that someone who enters competitions on a regular basis will be more inclined to do it once he's won a prize.
It's simply an intellectual arrogance to dismiss imagination and creativity as infantile toys.
Well luckily I didn't dismiss either of them. I personally enjoy writing fiction stories - which requires both imagination and creativity. The problem arises when you cannot discern that imagination as imagination, but consider it reality.
I have no credible historical or personal evidence for any of those things, and I am content to remain agnostic to them. Their existence as you or some wide-eyed sailor might describe them may or may not correspond to any reality, but they remain beyond my horizons of observation.
Why would someone so happy to advocate "faith", be talking about observation and evidence? And having said that, do you then recognise the rationality of a disbelievers position and irrationality of a believer who has neither seen credible evidence or observed god?
the claims for God's existence have come down to me almost as an avalanche.
It's somewhat amusing to see you use the words "evidence" and "observation" on the first part of the paragraph, and now resort to "claims".
But there's one thing that really sticks out like a sore thumb. Let's say I had witnessed a leprechaun. It was running around in my garden, then came in the house, made a tea and had a snooze on my sofa. Knowing that this is a leprechaun, you would never ever ever hear me say; "I believe in leprechauns", or "the claims for a leprechauns existence yada yada". Instead, I would say: "leprechauns exist, I've seen them", and be done with it.
Religious people don't do that. They supposedly 'know' that god is real and yet always say "I believe" and "I have faith". That shows beyond any reasonable doubt that they don't actually have a clue. If you know, you know. Period.
I know it's raining. I don't believe it's raining, and I don't have faith that it's raining. I
know it's raining.
It's hope, not knowledge - and the reason we hope, is to fulfil need.
His presence overwhelmed my experience since childhood - not supernaturally, but naturally
Ok, explain how.
not as something alien and hitherto undiscovered, but someone near, familiar and accessible.
A comforting, caring father figure should never seem 'alien and hitherto undiscovered'.
Where accounts of fantastical creatures and places have been diverse and spurious, often relying on ignorance, sentiment and sensation
That same sentiment should be applied to fantastical sky beings aswell. You are in no place, lacking any credible evidence, to make a separation between them.
the evidence that Jesus and Israel left behind have been within the realm of scholarly interest and are there for all to examine for themselves.
Such as? Oh kindly don't tell me you're talking about old scrolls written by people you don't know, have no valid position with which to trust, and who knew very little about the planet they lived on?
Also, what evidence did jesus leave behind other than nothing?
The people involved show no signs of having invented something for themselves
You met the biblical writers? If not, how can you say that with any credibility? Because those very same texts describe them as being good honest folk? Tell me please, I am truly fascinated.
there is always a precedence, a reason.
Of course. It's how storytelling works. There was a reason for Frodo to go to Mordor. What's your point?
Nor do their accounts show signs of self-flattering bias or in compensatiion for some inadequacy - on the contrary, Israel suffered more indignation and critical scrutiny under their God than they would have under a god who only served their needs or was invoked to justify their actions. And it is not only "true because it's brutal": they never hesitated to testify of his love and fathfulness when they deserved it least. They never failed to talk of His justice, whether it was condemning or supporting them.
But again you're getting it all from the same source, which is no different to the struggles Frodo went through but still somehow managed to take the ring, that not once does he actually give up on his quest even after a shitload of hardships, and even after being betrayed by Boromir, he does not talk down about the guy but stands up for him.
And for all that wealth of information, my experience of God is consistent not because of their accounts, but independently of them.
And yet you haven't managed to provide anything independant of them, but use those accounts to not only justify themselves, but to justify everything else. The bible is true, and the people in the bible are trustworthy because the bible says they are. We know god is real because the trustworthy people in the bible loved him even when the trustworthy people in the bible said they had a hard time.
Ridiculous.
I can confirm their experience with my own
You can't confirm anything.
but I can also judge their actions by the morality they were being weaned into.
The actions that they wrote that happened?
I can see David was wrong in the way he prayed to God to smite his enemies in bloodthirsty anger, but I can see that the justice he hoped for would be done nontheless.
Sure, like I can see Boromir was wrong to betray Frodo, and yet I can see the honour in Frodo forgiving him.
But you still haven't provided anything "independant of them".
But I can still tell you nothing more about leprechauns, mermaids, aliens, Eldorado or Atlantis than you already know, even though my curiosity about them had lead me far and wide during my adolescent years.
Well, now I have the opportunity to use a very common religious statement:
You just weren't looking hard enough.
But what are you saying, that they're not real because you couldn't find enough information on them, and that god is because you found the bible? It comes across that way, whether intentional or not.
I must say these knee-jerk objections were less than I expected of you and Cris. I never used argumentum ad populum in an argument, I asked a question, and seizing onto the possibility that I did just looks desperate.
All due respect, but I doubt the 'mistake' would have been made by both of us unless it came across that way. It doesn't mean you intended to, but these things happen. But having gone back over it again, you did indeed make a statement to that effect. You said:
"Having faith in a God who has been believed in for thousands of years by millions of people is hardly the same as inventing an imaginary friend at 6."
The "millions of people" is an important part of the statement, and unless that is to signify the merit of number of people, it has no use in the sentence. You should have said: "Having faith in a god is hardly the same as inventing an imaginary friend". You see, the "millions of people" in that sentence shows the reason for the differences. You did not say they're different because only kids believe in imaginary friends, or that they're different because one is on earth and the other is in space. The 'because' of your sentence was 'millions of people'.
As I said though, that might not have been intentional, and there's certainly nothing "desperate" on our part. You did indeed follow with a question asking if we can really see no difference between rational faith and delusion. What this shows is that you consider imaginary friends as delusion, but your own personal delusion 'god', as rational - when you haven't provided any information over why that is rational
other than to state "millions of people".
As that is the type of question that cannot be answered without you providing surrounding information, kindly tell us why one is rational while the other is personal delusion.
----------
Your answers only show what it would take *you* to believe in God.
Nonsense. The only thing I actually require to believe in god, is proof. I have the feeling it's exactly what you'd require to believe in leprechauns.
You are committing chronological snobbery again -- "If it is old, it must be wrong."
Where did I say "if it's old, it's wrong"? You know, some think the world is 7,000 years old, some say it's 4.5 billion. The people who say 7,000 years are wrong. Oh well, so much for your "if it's old, it's wrong". What I said was, that as people have progressed, and societies have changed, beliefs have changed to suit". Once upon a time people were using an abacus, nowadays we use a calculator. That doesn't mean an abacus is wrong, merely that it has changed as people and societies have progressed. Understand?
Worthless little life. You think that this is what life truly IS, for everyone?
No. It can be whatever you want or need it to be. That's the whole point.
If you keep insisting that the only definition of God is that of "imaginary sky being", then no matter what anyone says about God, nothing will move you from your cemented position.
It's like as if in your dictionary, an apple is depicted as what others refer to as "orange". So when there are oranges on the table, you insist to call them apples. And if someone asks you, "Would you like one of these oranges?", you reply, "Thse aren't oranges, they are apples!"
Don't try and avoid the subject with a pedantic discussion on how I refer to gods. Look, you can define it/them however you want to. Happy now? Good, so can you please rationalise how belief in a god and belief in an imaginary friend are any different.
You are leaving out one very important phase: When something "really bad" happens, esp. like a near death experience, surviving a bad car accident, for example, what can happen after that is that the person finds himself in an intense mental state. If you survive when all common sense pointed that you won't, you find yourself thinking in extremes, in terms of life and death, whether you like it or not, for such was the experience. This is not usual everyday thinking.
I didn't leave it out, it's all covered in my statement that the majority of religious people become religious after a tragic event. However, I'll still reply to it.
You are right in saying "it's not usual everyday thinking". Of course it isn't. The brain doesn't go through that kind of trauma every day, and with a little luck not very often at all. But your brain is not stupid. In a position where death is a probability or possibility you will experience certain things - to make death not quite so bad.
You would have heard of the common saying: "my life flashed before my eyes". Why do you think that is? Let me ask you, would you rather spend the last moments of your life seeing wonderful images from the past, or totally witnessing your face smash into the front end of a double decker bus?
What about white tunnels etc? Again, would you rather be having pleasant thoughts/visions or lie there looking at all the blood around you and your decapitated leg sitting 20 feet down the road?
It also serves to relax you, and when you're relaxed you stand more chance of survival. If you're leaking blood, shaking round like a lunatic would only make you lose more blood, whereas lying still would prevent that from happening. If you've damaged your back, writhing around screaming will only serve to make it worse whereas looking into a nice pleasant white tunnel will just make you say: "ooh, that's nice".
People round here really have little respect for the brains abilities.
It is upon facing such extremes, that one more drastically considers the value and course of one's life, the need to make decisions that one wasn't used to make before.
It is only after this that some people turn to religion. Not for consolation or out of fear, but because of the need to make clear, life-long decisions. And only established religions offer room for such decisions.
What decision would that be then? That they don't intend to die?
Why do you think that "being special" can be a problem?
I didn't say it was a problem. It's the reverse, 'not being special' that can be a problem.
Most people want to be loved. Wanting to be loved is not a problem.
I never said it was a problem, not being loved can be a problem.
This is true only for Mormonism.
Only mormons go to heaven and get reunited with their family? First I've heard about that.
I get the distinct impression you have misuuderstood my list. I suggest you read it again just to make sure.
It does very much matter who agrees with it! People vote. They vote for governments, they vote for presidents. Presidents don't just elect themselves.
And some governments and presidents have great power.
Sure, but that doesn't make my interest in it any greater.
), and internal systems that you don't even know are happening, (chemical release etc).