[Closed] Anyone for another religion thread?

Back into the all opinions are equally valid.

Nope. Not all.

It's about respecting other people's intelligence. He's already acknowledged it in all other areas - so a bit more intelligence is required on his part to understand a different value system.

Just to be clear - this isn't about the origin of the universe. That's a small part. It's about the existence of a benign higher power who cares about us. Now, I'm not getting into that argument myself, but if an intelligent person wants to believe in it then by definition they might have intelligent reasons.

You need to learn a bit more about humanity I think and how we work.

that's not the same as telling people not to use condoms or genitally mutilating baby boys as well as being homophobic, sexist or other discrimination hidden behind a wall of religious freedom.

Nope. But I am not talking about those things (or offering justification for them). I am talking about belief in a benign higher power.

TBF if you are going to believe in imaginary friends as an adult then getting the piss ripped out of you seems fair and just. It's no different to an adult thinking fairys or Santa clause is real.

I haven't followed this entire thread, but I have to say - as one of the contributors that most often tries to assert the reasonableness of faith - that I don't actually think the majority of what is said on religion threads in general is insulting or nasty. Contributions by folk such as Cougar and Drac and miketually and others tend to be sincere and engaging. Heck, even Mr Woppit makes legitimate points!

The quote above, however, is indicative of the sort of juvenile insult that just doesn't help these threads along. There is clearly a substantial number of completely rational and intelligent people who believe in God that don't warrant having 'the piss ripped out of [them]'. By all means, declare that you think belief in God is non-rational, and literally in-credible, but don't be an ass and equate a philosophical/theological proposition with 'fairies or santa claus'.

Just to be clear - this isn't about the origin of the universe. That's a small part. It's about the existence of a benign higher power who cares about us. Now, I'm not getting into that argument myself, but if an intelligent person wants to believe in it then by definition they have intelligent reasons.

[i]I see you edited to add a might there[/i]

We have intelligent people telling us that belief in God is not the same as belief in Santa, but some people don't want to listen to the answer. You are exhibiting the confirmation bias of which you area accusing the religious.

We have intelligent people telling us that belief in God is not the same as belief in Santa, but some people don't want to listen to the answer

... and yet they struggle to explain why that is the case in any sort of meaningful way.

By all means, declare that you think belief in God is non-rational, and literally in-credible, but don't be an ass and equate a philosophical/theological proposition with 'fairies or santa claus'.

Fairies, Santa Claus and god all share the exact same property.

There is no evidence for their existence outside of the human imagination. They are all fictional characters.

It's perfectly reasonable to equate them all with each other.

By all means, declare that you think belief in God is non-rational, and literally in-credible, but don't be an ass and equate a philosophical/theological proposition with 'fairies or santa claus'.

in no particular order

god, fairies and santa are all man made
god, fairies and santa don't require evidence (see point 4)
god, fairies and santa don't exist
god, fairies and santa are lies told to children

explain how I can't equate a deity to fairies and santa?

and yet they struggle to explain why that is the case in any sort of meaningful way

Meaningful to you....

explain how I can't equate a deity to fairies and santa?

Well, we have concrete evidence that the gifts from Santa are actually from parents. So we can discount that one, so it's probably not a great example. Fairies on the other hand - I cannot refute that analogy, I am not religious.

However, [b]I am prepared to listen to someone who can[/b].

I am talking about belief in a benign higher power.

(Bites) 'Benign?' 😐

YOU can, if you so choose, but it's not very nice to extrapolate what you see as a comical lack of evidence to support that belief across to belittle people for whom faith is a fundamental pillar of their lives. But YMMV.

Also, the idea that "Theology" endows a belief in a god with any more weight than a belief in fairies or whatever is an empty argument, as "Theology" itself is as meaningful only as a discussion about, for instance, the motivations of Noddy and Big Ears in the stories featuring those imaginary characters.

I don't have any Theology myself, but I also don't have any Leprechaunology either. I'm quite happy to maintain that Leprechauns have no basis in reality, however...

The question I would be asking is this:

'What does faith give to those who have it?'

Well, we have concrete evidence that the gifts from Santa...

...show the power that parents have to indoctrinate their children with a concept with no evidence.

If all religions said, "right, we'll wait till they're (reasonably educated) adults and then give them the option," they'd die out in a few generations; maybe longer, but they would.

I'm quite happy to maintain that Leprechauns have no basis in reality, however...

Now hang on a minute... 😀

Rereading the EU thread (don't ask) I couldn't help but notice that out of all the childish bile being spouted, there was one voice that always seemed reasonable, measured and polite, and it was the voice of molgrips.

Then he starts this thread.

What a ****.

It's perfectly reasonable to equate them all with each other.

Agreed, and...

I think it was Gypsy Rose Lee who said: If people dont like being laughed at then they shouldn't have such funny ideas (sic)

The question I would be asking is this:

'What does faith give to those who have it?'

Why?

If people dont like being laughed at then they shouldn't have such funny ideas (sic)

Funny is a matter of opinion.

Then he starts this thread.

What a ****.

Sorry? I am not trolling. I think this is genuinely interesting. I do not like having arguments, but I do like having discussions. If you look past the crappiness you will see that many posters have made positive contributions.

Was that the accusation sbob? That I am trolling?

The question I would be asking is this:

'What does faith give to those who have it?'

Just because you can ask it doesn't make it a valid question

You don't think it's a valid question then? Why?

If all religions said, "right, we'll wait till they're (reasonably educated) adults and then give them the option," they'd die out in a few generations; maybe longer, but they would.

I'm not so sure it's just a child thing - as I hinted at earlier, I think many are drawn due to a fear of death, entropy and eventual decay and meaningless existence. I think religion can genuinely add some sort of meaning for some folk - purpose through good deeds etc. - but the fear of death is a good selling point and snares many an adult.

I watched some programme on the beeb about how Christianity didn't really get a hold in this country until the plague started wiping out the masses. Nothing was working to solve the death toll - all the herbal shit, snake oil and guff from the clever folk at the time failed to produce results and save people - except prayer. I can't remember the exact reason but folk came to believe in the Christian god because it was the only thing that 'saved' them. Paraphrasing the enitre thing, obviously, but I would imagine that data can be found quite readily with strong Google Fu if anyone's interested.

I don't have a lot of time to engage today, unfortunately, but in terms of equating the proposition of an eternal God with santa or fairies, philosopher David Bentley Hart offers some comment on the fallacy of their comparability:

To speak of “God” properly—in a way, that is, consonant with the teachings of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism, Bahá’í, much of antique paganism, and so forth—is to speak of the one infinite ground of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.

The possibility of gods or spirits or angels or demons, and so on, is all very interesting to contemplate, but remains a question not of metaphysics but only of the taxonomy of nature (terrestrial, celestial, and chthonic).

And yet any speaker at one of those atheist revivalist meetings need only trot out either of two reliable witticisms—“I believe neither in God nor in the fairies at the bottom of my garden” or “Everyone today is a disbeliever in Thor or Zeus, but we simply believe in one god less”—to elicit warmly rippling palpitations of self-congratulatory laughter from the congregation. Admittedly, one ought not judge a movement by its jokes, but neither should one be overly patient with those who delight in their own ignorance of elementary conceptual categories.

Beliefs regarding fairies concern a certain kind of object that may or may not exist within the world, and such beliefs have much the same sort of intentional and rational shape as beliefs regarding the neighbors over the hill or whether there are such things as black swans. Beliefs regarding God concern the source and end of all reality, the unity and existence of every particular thing and of the totality of all things, the ground of the possibility of anything at all. Fairies and gods, if they exist, occupy something of the same conceptual space as organic cells, photons, and the force of gravity, and so the sciences might perhaps have something to say about them, if a proper medium for investigating them could be found.
God, by contrast, is the infinite actuality that makes it possible for photons and (possibly) fairies to exist, and so can be “investigated” only, on the one hand, by acts of logical deduction and conjecture or, on the other, by contemplative or spiritual experiences.

All the above quotes are taken from David Bentley Hart's essay in First Things. entitled [url= https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/06/god-gods-and-fairies ]God, Gods, and Fairies[/url].

Meanwhile, here is [url= https://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/believe-it-or-not ] Hart's critique of the New Atheists[/url] (NB: NOT all atheists! Only the recent public phenomenon called 'New Atheism' or 'Radical Atheism').

An interesting direction, considering God not as the beardy chap talking to people from the sky but as a basis for reality. The origin of the big bang if you like.

As if reality is a conscious entity.

Was that the accusation sbob? That I am trolling?

Not at all, just that there is always an element of inevitability, and as a bloke I can't pay you a compliment without also calling you a **** at the same time, which this thread gave me the opportunity to do. 🙂

@Saxonrider, Reminds me of this

Well known fraudster Deepak Chopra, Woo woo 🙂

If all religions said, "right, we'll wait till they're (reasonably educated) adults and then give them the option," they'd die out in a few generations;

Maybe.

Not my experience though.

I never set foot in a Church until I was in my mid twenties and had a Degree, other than for the occasional school service, Church hall disco or for Boys Brigade as a kid.

My parents have never knowingly attended a regular Church service as far as I am aware.

I was not converted, indoctrinated, Born Again or pressured by anyone, ever.

I was not lonely or vulnerable. No one has taken advantage of me in any way. I have not been encouraged to oppress or harm anyone.

I walked through the door, entirely of my own volition, sat down, listened and was listened to, was made welcome, liked it and stayed.

I found my life enriched by the experience.

A bit like this forum in many respects.

considering God not as the beardy chap

Please tell me you didn't get to this point in [s]your life[/s] the thread believing that folk believed God was some sort of ghostly bloke with a beard...

So rather than seeing God as a supernatural being (I.e. one that exists outside of the laws of nature) we should see her/him/them as a superdupernatural being who created the unreality in which the supernatural beings exist? That logic seems overly tortuous and the tone of his writing comes across as dismissive and Condescending.

philosopher David Bentley Hart offers some comment on the fallacy of their comparability:

I don't see anything he's written which negates the comparison. The 'fairies and santa' trope is just a way of simplifying the concept that the same tenet of unevidenced faith which underlies all of these. Just because the role of whichever god we're talking about has been gloried up a bit, by quite a few centuries of scholarly imagination and fine words, and this might explain why more adults have faith in its existence, the essential principle is the same.

If you're chucking it around as an insult then perhaps a more respectful approach is needed. Many of us, those with religious faith and those without, have a self-image, or a view of the world, which is based partly on reality, and partly imagination or delusion.

But that's a lot of words, some attempting to be big, that basically bake down to:

1. God ([i]as the author defines it[/i]) is inherent to the universe.
2. You define gods by their place in nature (taxonomy).
3. A side kick at non-believers in the same vein that believers complain about getting from non-believers.
4. If gods exist then we haven't yet found a way so we can only investigate by logic or experiences.

This is classic strawman. Define your object in (1), knock down the options you don't like in (3) and (4) leaving you with what you want.

0/10 do better next time Mr Hart.

He also didn't consider Buddhism or the multi-god religions. If we're talking about religion you can't just cherry pick *which* god you're talking about, there's loads of others too that must be explained or dismissed.

is to speak of the one infinite ground of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.

Very poetic.

Not sure how this refutes the idea that "transcendence" can't be equally applied to Bilbo Baggins as well as ( whichever) god...

I was not converted, indoctrinated, Born Again or pressured by anyone, ever.

Nor was I saying that everyone who "believes" is.

I would say that 100% of the "Catholics" I was brought up with were though.

But that's just my anecdote.

EDIT: Not born again or converted obviously.

Fairies, Santa Claus and god all share the exact same property.

There is no evidence for their existence outside of the human imagination. They are all fictional characters.

It's perfectly reasonable to equate them all with each other.

So they all share one property, that does not make it reasonable to equate them.

You share many properties with a strawberry, it does not mean you are the same.

There is one relevant difference between God and Santa. That is that all actions which are attributed to Santa have a solid, first hand, complete and comprehensive, easily understood explanation. God, not so much.

Because gravity or because evolution are incomplete answers

as a bloke I can't pay you a compliment without also calling you a **** at the same time, which this thread gave me the opportunity to do

Fair enough 🙂 but you have a point. I should have realised we'd end up mired in negativity as usual.

But I like the metaphysical part of this morning. If God is another name for reality then it clearly does exist.

A side kick at non-believers in the same vein that believers complain about getting from non-believers.

Agree that the tone of those quotes is unnecessarily caustic and snide.

Mr Woppit - Member

Molgrips

The question I would be asking is this:
'What does faith give to those who have it?'

Why?

Yes, but that would redefine God a bit. Unless you can argue that reality has a purpose or will or agency

The question I would be asking is this:
'Who gives faith to those who have it?'

And not to those who don't?

Why?

Because this might lead you to understand what people are getting from their faith, and lead your own questioning in a better direction.

No, the question is "what", not why. 🙂
Edit - Crikey, gotta be quick in here today! 🙂

Unless you can argue that reality has a purpose or will or agency

You can no more argue that it doesn't that that is does.

Because this might lead you to understand what people are getting from their faith, and lead your own questioning in a better direction.

Agreed, even from a behaviourist perspective faith may be seen to have some very positive effects

There seems to be a thrust on this thread to suggest that the lack of evidence is irrelevant compared to the rudeness of those who would suggest that there is a lack of evidence.

Its like the special pleading olympics.

In my own experience (of the claims of religious people) God can:
a) interfere in everyday traffic flow to provide parking spaces for the faithful [who ask for his help],
b) fail to stop infants dying of painful diseases, [who ask for his help].

If you can bring those ideas together in your head and think "seems about the right way for a pan dimensional superbeing with infinite power to behave" then it almost looks like you're proposing and defending a massively wooly proposition that seems intelligently designed to change shape and form (and effect) to counter any argument.

Personally I subscribe to the view that you (generally) can't reason someone out of a view that they didn't reason themselves into (can't remember who said it).

If only religion was benign, and didn't have such a negative effect on society (and the lives of both its proponents and its detractors) I'd prefer to ignore the whole philosophically and morally bankrupt business.

Please tell me you didn't get to this point in your life the thread believing that folk believed God was some sort of ghostly bloke with a beard...

I said that because it appears that many athiests think that's what Christians believe. As per the original topic here.

Because this might lead you to understand what people are getting from their faith, and lead your own questioning in a better direction.

I understand that the Vatican employ the services of a "Chief Excorcist". This is a person who claims that humans can be inhabited and directed by "demons" to cause harm.

Another example of medieval ignorance and a belief in fictional beings.

Progress in modern medicine has, of course, identified these problems as being caused by various types of mental illness and can offer medicinal relief.

Speaking as someone who once had a close working relationship with a very creative and intelligent person who was diagnosed as having a "schizo-affective disorder" and claimed in all seriousness that the voice in his head was "from hell, baby" but refused his medication and eventually threw himself under a train, if I ever met this "Chief Excorcist" I'd feel strongly impelled to punch the ****er straight in the face.

In my own experience (of the claims of religious people)

SOME religious people. Not all religious people are very bright. I don't think those ideas are endorsed by all believers.

you (generally) can't reason someone out of a view that they didn't reason themselves into

That quote may uncover more truth than you might've intended. Can faith be subject to reason? Should it be? If so, why? Why does everything in life have to be to do with reason, unless you are a Vulcan? Are you a Vulcan? Would you like to be like one?

Because gravity or because evolution are incomplete answers

well gravity has some unanswered questions but evolution does not.

So they all share one property, that does not make it reasonable to equate them.

well the do like I pointed out above. they are all invented by man and they don't actually exist. so they can be equated. we can equate the strawberry plant to humans by the fact they are both eukaryotes

There is one relevant difference between God and Santa. That is that all actions which are attributed to Santa have a solid, first hand, complete and comprehensive, easily understood explanation. God, not so much

santa and god have never done anything, they don't exist

evolution does not.

Oh, good, I have a few questions for you

[s]Was[/s] Is there a point to this thread? (To the room, not OP specifically) - It began with [s]a detailed poll[/s] an article [s]referencing[/s] mentioning an as yet unseen poll, the findings of which allegedly show that the majority of Britons (over 2/3rds) believe that the majority of Christians believe that the Biblical account of Genesis is literal. The article had a little pop at the atheist quotient as nearly 3/4 of those atheists polled believed the same thing and yada yada Dawkins. I think that was it. Oh, and the article seemed to infer that latterday atheists have somehow dragged down the level of discourse, (presumably on par with the levels of discourse on [b]everything[/b] since Youtube comment-feeds appeared.)

13 pages in, have we discussed the poll, the intentions/past work of the poll's author/s, the breadth and diversity of the sample 'groups'? etc etc?

Are you a Vulcan? Would you like to be like one?

How about 1/3 a Vulcan? Some days rising to 2/3.

Now, back to removing spocks from one's eyes...

[img] [/img]

santa and god have never done anything, they don't exist

But I know who did all the Santa stuff. The God stuff, some of it is just unexplained

13 pages in, have we discussed the poll, the intentions/past work of the poll's author/s, the breadth and diversity of the sample 'groups'? etc etc?

it may not be what the followers believe but its what is pumped out by the religious leaders that matters. If the old testament or genesis is not relevant then why is it still in the bible.

The God stuff, some of it is just unexplained

like?

If the old testament or genesis is not relevant then why is it still in the bible.

v2.1? Original manual included only for reference at users own risk?

like?

Fun

Eyebrows

DNA lengthening

Apologies for the repost. I don't want trollgrips to miss it...

Because this might lead you to understand what people are getting from their faith, and lead your own questioning in a better direction.

I understand that the Vatican employ the services of a "Chief Excorcist". This is a person who claims that humans can be inhabited and directed by "demons" to cause harm.

Another example of medieval ignorance and a belief in fictional beings.

Progress in modern medicine has, of course, identified these problems as being caused by various types of mental illness and can offer medicinal relief.

Speaking as someone who once had a close working relationship with a very creative and intelligent person who was diagnosed as having a "schizo-affective disorder" and claimed in all seriousness that the voice in his head was "from hell, baby" but refused his medication and eventually threw himself under a train, if I ever met this "Chief Excorcist" I'd feel strongly impelled to punch the **** straight in the face.

santa and god have never done anything, they don't exist

Given that God is not really very well defined, that's a bit of an empty assertion.

I believe he does not, but I could be wrong.

All sorts of gods are very clearly defined. Many of them in different ways by those who claim the same allegiance.

None of the definitions have ever proffered evidence of being anything more than something that someone just made up.

Really. You'll have to do better than that.

Molly you could be wrong in the same way i could be wrong when i say the sun will set in the west and rise tomorrow. Anything is theoretically possible even those things that are actually implausible to the point of impossible [ except theoretically]

As for god not being very well defined - its harsh of you to claim those religious folk dont even know what they are worshipping but i am happy to add it to the list of issues they need to address.

Yes molly anyone could be wrong but on one side we have the evidence of science from the big bang, to evolution to the age of the universe to the known laws of biology, physics chemistry and basic laws of logic and on the other a book they accept is not entirely accurate and their faith

Its not much of a contest its like arguing a squirrel could beat a bear in a fight - yes it could happen but really its not even worth considering.

All sorts of gods are very clearly defined.

Oh? Go on?

Yes molly anyone could be wrong but on one side we have the evidence of science from the big bang, to evolution to the age of the universe to the known laws of biology, physics chemistry and basic laws of logic

None of which is incompatible with the concept of God.

Sorry, this is from 14 pages ago....

Simon_Semtex - Member
Peterpoddy....

"It explained to the people of the time the two big mysteries - Where we come from and what happens when we die - and gave sensible rules to live by. There's a lot of sense in it."

So how relevant is this book today?

Case in point....

Leviticus 19:19
'You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

So im not allowed to wear a cotton/polyester shirt? Nor should I be drinking milk from the abomination that is the "Holstein Friesian." And what about my Allotment? I've got carrots planted in the same field as cabbages?

Sensible rules indeed!! LOL

Am I going to hell?

You've chosen to ignore most of what I wrote and quote something to nitpick me and make yourself look clever and funny.
It's not worked. But you go right ahead if you like.

molgrips - Member
All sorts of gods are very clearly defined.
Oh? Go on?

Oh please...

Thor, Vishnu, Zeus etc etc ad neauseum.

The Bible is full of descriptions of the Christian version.

Don't be so obtuse.

None of which is incompatible with the concept of God.

🙄

Descriptions? Or definitions?

I'm genuinely not aware of any specific detailed definitions. Descriptions aren't enough really are they?

@Junkyard - good riposte, well done.

I feel like the questions I was asking earlier in the thread went unanswered- about how far you can deviate/interpret your way away from the texts and the traditional model before you're no longer really following that religion, etc. But now we're back in a similar place in the thread so...

If your idea of god is "another name for reality" then how are you religious at all? Believing in reality isn't a religion, it's atheism.

Where we seem to be, with traditional faiths is that over time people go one of two ways. They go fundamentalist, or they go floppy. And floppiness always asks the question, at what point is your faith so floppy that it's no such thing? (at what point are you using blocks from your lego race car in a model of a dinosaur, but still saying it's a race car)

If your idea of god is "another name for reality" then how are you religious at all? Believing in reality isn't a religion, it's atheism.

Christianity, at the more liberal end, seems to be heading towards a sort of pantheism, with some moral guidance from Jesus's teachings.

None of which is incompatible with the concept of God.

To be fair, once you expand the definition of 'God' to include everything and more ... you can't 'lose' the debate. As long as not required to give self-contradicting evidence.

ie
'Show me God'?
(Points at rock/tree/self/star)
'Show me 'not God'?
(Points at, er...)

None of which is incompatible with the concept of God.

If you claim god is responsible for the big bang you have to state what is responsible for god.

That's why it's incompatible.

Just one example. But of course you know this. This and other perfectly delineated refutations of the religious argument, have been presented time and again in all the threads in which you yourself have taken part whilst you tread and retread your tedious attempts at manipulating the discussion.

Whilst ignoring the ones you don't want to deal with.

Classic troll behaviour and for that reason, ahm oot (as they say in the land of the hot Mars bar).

Very good question Northwind. It certainly fits with my own ideas of subjective reality.

For people to believe in something I think it has to offer them something. So fundamentalism offers something that fundamentalists like.

Molgrips

SOME religious people. Not all religious people are very bright. I don't think those ideas are endorsed by all believers.

Praying to god for help with your everyday life is actually a pretty mainstream idea in most christian faiths.

Its only when you point out the moral absurdity of 'gods' apparent value system (as I did above) that this becomes something that some claim isn't "endorsed by most believers".

I think the root of the problem is that "god" will remain ill defined as long as it helps religious people defend the concept.

He will at various times be everything between:
1. An all powerful being (who incidentally is portrayed as a man with a beard by his followers) who created the universe and knows everything and loves us, and will interfere in the world to make good things happen for us in our everyday lives (and will torture us for an infinite amount of time unless we love him back).
2. An unknowable, benign, ineffable thing that exists somewhere, for no definable reason and with no discernable effect on the physical world, and moves in 'mysterious' ways beyond our understanding.

Why don't believers pick a place on the continuum, and tell us what they actually believe in?

They want a god type (1) who is powerful and can control the natural world, but then want to use god type (2) to absolve him of responsibility when nature (by storm, earthquake, drought or disease) kills the innocent.

So choose.

Rather than criticise atheists for their 'wrong' image of god, tell us what he actually is?

I await your clear, concise, internally consistent, morally unassailable creations.

Otherwise I fear it may be "special pleading olympics" all the way down.

The definition of religious, rationaist or atheist is a catch all for some kind of belief system. At the end of the day all these are human constructions so equally valid to answer the question what is my purpose in life and how should I live my life?

All are based on stuff that humans have created in their own brain which is not the real world but a projection/model that our brain creates from the input of our senses added to our own brains workings.

That the world was created out of nothing via a false vacuum is as satisfying to my mind as saying it was built by god. I don't really understand a false vacuum as how can nothing be something and who made god?

Q:( for the religious types ) ...
As you get older do you worry more about death ..or is this something you are looking forward to ?
I'm only asking this as surely the end game is a better "life" for you in whatever heaven you believe in ..and you must constantly be wondering if you have done enough to book your ticket..
Also while some of you are making your observations would it be possible to revert to "simple speak"..for those amongst us who haven't swallowed a dictionary for breakfast ..because rather than being impressed by your own perceived intellect..it comes over as being rather dull.
I've seen a lot of quotes in this " discussion " from hundreds of years ago ...I will leave you with one which came to light last month ..
"Once we've made sense of our ( own) world we want to go and **** up everybody elses because his or her truth doesnt match mine.
But this is the problem...truth is individual calculation which means because we all have different perspectives..there isn't just one single truth is there? "
The opening line from the album "To The Bone "..Steven Wilson.
Let's dance... 😀

Q:( for the everybody types ) ...
As you get older do you worry more about death ..or is this something you are looking forward to ?
I'm only asking this as surely the end game is [s]a better "life"[/s] you have led a fulfilling life the matches your morals and belief system for you in whatever heaven/perfect world you believe in ..and you must constantly be wondering if you have done enough to [s]book your ticket[/s] have led a good life..

Q:( for the religious types ) ...
As you get older do you worry more about death ..or is this something you are looking forward to ?

TBH This doesn't greatly figure in the equation. I worry about it (or not) about as much as anybody else does, I'd imagine.
I certainly don't look forward to it. Neither do i think that i'm racking up points for some kind of entrance exam as you seem to suggest.

It's more of a comfort following the death of others if truth be told.

Praying to god for help with your everyday life is actually a pretty mainstream idea in most christian faiths.

I have seen this a lot yes. To me "God, give me strength" seems reasonable. "God, get rid of this cold please" does not.

Why don't believers pick a place on the continuum, and tell us what they actually believe in?

I think the majority of people (atheist or otherwise) don't pay that much attention to their own thought processes.

All are based on stuff that humans have created in their own brain which is not the real world but a projection/model that our brain creates from the input of our senses added to our own brains workings.

Exactly - well put.

truth is individual calculation which means because we all have different perspectives..there isn't just one single truth is there? "

IMO the only possible hypothesis given the evidence!

It's more of a comfort following the death of others if truth be told.

Religious people close to me seem to struggle much more with death than non-religious people close to me.

Have we reached the point in STW religion threads where the interesting discussion happens? I hope so.

GEDA - Member

The definition of religious, rationaist or atheist is a catch all for some kind of belief system.

Sorry, but that's not true- atheism isn't belief, it's the absence of belief.

(some crusading atheists really do seem to have atheism as a religion, I always think they're not truly atheists at all but antitheists, they believe so strongly in their disbelief)

I think atheism is poorly defined too tbh.

A genuine equestion for the "how can you believe in imaginary sky fairy" types.

Is it OK to believe in an actual, historically documented human being who had some nice things to say about how they thought people should behave to live a good life?

You don't need to believe that they were possessed of any mystical powers or anything.

Only that they were real people, who must have been considered pretty hot shit by their contemporaries to be remmembered after all this time, who dispensed real lessons which might still resonate with people hundred or even thousands of years later?

Perhaps because you sound like an agnostic, Molgrips.

GEDA..
Was that meant as a genuine reply ?
Re-writing some of my post certainly didn't provide an answer to the the question that I had posed ..or was that you being a goody little two shoes in the eyes of your god?
Perchy..thanks for the genuine reply ..Im failing to see how you can take comfort in the death of others ..but that's just me..
I have generally been left grief stricken ..and time not faith has eased the pain

Only that they were real people, who must have been considered pretty hot shit by their comtemporaries to be remmembered after all this time, who dispensed real lessons which might still resonate with people hundred or even thousands of years later?