To think that belief in Father Christmas is not comparable to religious belief.

[Throughthelongnight]

Just that really. I have noticed that the expectation is that we all go along with the pretence of FC for the sake of parent's children's sensibility, but the same is not afforded where religious belief is concerned.

I don't know Oxford, do you think your atheism has inspired and played a great part in your achievements? If so, good on ya.

It always makes me when people find something that drives them, inspires them, makes them stronger and better. Be it family, religion, literature or other people.

Oxford you are overthinking this. People who are religious can do great things and athiests can also do great things. Im not trying to be provocative here. Insisting that people who believe in God are mentally defective is deluded. Insisting that a person's religion has got nothing to do with the good things that they do (but of course it can be blamed for any of their bad points) is arrogant because how the hell do you know what motivated them. You are an athiest and have a pHD and my dad has a pHD and he believes in God. What does that prove? Nothing. This is getting boring.

Dione you have much more patience and compassion then me to still be smiling at these people.

Bags, your simple question has been simply answered already. But i will again answer that from the Quran - the book that i believe is the word of God:

Nay, you (O Muhammad ) wondered (at their insolence) while they mock (at you and at the Qur'an). 37:12

I actually didnt care about you calling me names, it doesnt hurt me, nor shake my beliefs. If anything, it says more about you.

What is sad though is that you continue to use those words which is actually quite disrespectful to those who believe in a book (torah, bible, quran to name a few) but more importantly it is disrespectful to those who may have MH issues, but of course you have justified your use of the words already - so as long as you have driven your point home, who cares about the impact of your disrespectful terminology.

what does sounding a bit mentally ill actually mean?

Oxford, what do you believe in?

Anything that goes against what society considers the norm.

If I said I truly believed Harry Potter to be real and lived my life by this assertion, people would consider me mentally ill wouldn't they.

Replace Harry Potter with any book of fiction, or in Atheism's opinion, bible/quran etc.

Baubles, what does society consider the norm?

BUT I don't agree with calling people mentally ill because I don't think in this case it is an illness, in my OPINION it is someone being deluded.

defuse Behaviour that society doesn't consider the norm would be classed as abnormal behaviour. Believing something is real just because it has been written down would be considered abnormal behaviour

fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1457497_10151972924190318_761273913_n.jpg

Someone just posted this on my facebook, that probably sums my feelings up on the matter. But this argument is pointless, you have your views and I have mine and there will never be a resolution

are you really comparing the bible and the koran to novels

have you read either?

you may not believe in god, that what is written is gods word but what is written is not a story it is far more complex then that

if someone were to read the labour manifesto and decide to become a labour party member, would they be considered them to be mentally ill too as this is the political party they wish to follow

it is just a ridiculous argument and quite insulting

How on EARTH does that quote answer my question?! It is just some stuff from a book about ignoring people who are rude to you. Which also makes me wonder, how pathetic are people that they need a book to tell them that stuff, instead of being able to work it out for themselves, but that's another issue.

I have spoken at length in positive terms about mental health issues. I have demonstrated how some mental health problems have actually helped many great people achieve what they did. I have constantly explained and re-explained, in laborious detail, that I do not see mental health issues as some sort of inadequacy. Others, however, keep referring to them negatively, and lying that it's what I've said, which speaks volumes about their preconceptions of mental health, and their own dishonesty.

Dione, I believe in things that are demonstrably obvious, provable, logical factual and sensible, egalitarian and moral. I am not capable of believing stuff, or believing in things purely because I am told they are true, or a book says so, because I am no longer a child. And even then, I could see it was all a crock of illogical, often offensive, horseshit.

Baubles answers my question: saying you believe someone exists because a book says so, makes a person sound like they mental health issues, because that is technically delusional. Just because the book has cultural privilege, and loads of other people collude in said delusion, doesn't make it any less odd. Or worthy of respect.

Yes I am Freudian.

And yes I have.

Harry Potter maybe wasn't the best example. Lets say I decided to write a book, rules and guidance on life and said I got all my info from a higher being. People decided to follow it. In a few thousand years time who's to say my book wouldn't be recognised as holy, as a religion, and people could be having this exact argument about it.

And no, what a silly example. The labour manifesto isn't claiming to get it's answers from a deity. It's a person, we all know it is and people chose to follow the real life person.

The Labour Manifesto doesn't ask you to believe in a character that it can offer no proof for, save "because we say so", though, does it, Freudian? That's a very weak example to use.

Religious texts do contain fiction, huge swathes of them are fiction. I know some people believe stuff like angels and so on, but let us not humiliate ourselves by entertaining such preposterous nonsense as truth for a second. That is beneath us as adults.

written in the bible, koran and other religious texts are examples of the powers of god. profits and so on

it is not as simple as someone came along and said i have just spoken with god and this is the way it is and suddenly everyone was became a believer

it is a ridiculous statement and once again it i find it insulting

The only religion I really know anything about is Christianity so these are genuine questions.

I know Judaism does not accept Christ as the son of god and the whole idea of exemption and resurrection through Christ as
saviour; so fairly fundamental differences between those two.

So far as Islam I assume the position on Christ will be the same as Judaism although no doubt plenty of other points on which it will disagree with Christianity and Judaism.

Is the god of Islam, Judaism and Christianity the same one?

Given there seem to be significant differences amongst them which one is right?

How is that determined?

Who gets to decide?

And are Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are misguided?

Nobody apart from actual Scientologists ever seems to have a good word to say about them but just out of interest are they right too?"

I posted the post above on Friday
but haven't had an answer from any of the theists. I'm genuinely interested. How do you square all of you being right when there are such huge discrepancies in
what you believe?

I'm genuinely puzzled as to whether you're believing in the same god given one version sent his only son to redeem us and the other didn't.

And why are there two books which are the word of god? Or can you only answer these points by saying, " well I'm right the rest of you are wrong"

"

prophets .....

not profits

^written in the bible, koran and other religious texts are examples of the powers of god. profits and so on

it is not as simple as someone came along and said i have just spoken with god and this is the way it is and suddenly everyone was became a believer^

Freudian I've seen you post on here and consider you to be intelligent, but my god what a load of godswhallop.

Anyone can write 'examples of powers of god'

I can write all day long someone creating the world, about turning water to vodka wine and telling people how they should and shouldn't live their lives. It doesn't mean people should believe it.

I find it frankly quite scary that people think just because someone said something happened, it did. You wouldn't apply this logic anywhere else in life but do for this.

What to you is egalitarian and moral Oxford?

Peaceful, there is lots to smile about. We are people. People are amazing. We have intelligence, compassion, buckets of potential. We are all capable of being better than we are, so when I hear of something that has made someone better than they were before, I rejoice.

And since you have so much faith in your book, what do you think about other religions? They say exactly the same as you, they believe their book is the word of god. What do you think of that? You can't exactly turn round and say they aren't true because you're all using the same argument.

No-one is saying that the stories and details in religious texts aren't detailed, complex, and so on, Freudian. What people are saying is that a) lots of the stuff in it is now totally irrelevant, as it was law that made sense and worked (if you were a man with power, at least) back in the day and 2) for the supernatural elements, it is unacceptable to insist that people respect what they believe in (not that they belive in the first place) purely on the grounds of 'because a book says so' with zero other proof.

Literary complexity or volume does not add to any level of proof or believability. If believers of any faith want the content of their beliefs to be respected or accepted, they have to come up with more than 'my particular religious books says it is true', otherwise they ultimately do look like a child insisting that Dennis The Menace is a real person.

Sadly, it is one of the reasons why believers and non-believers will never be able to get the other to see what they are on about: one side insists that it has a truth that it can never proove, and the other side says there is no truth without proof, and what the first side believes in proof is not proof at all, and so on and so on and so on.

Prove, not proove.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles That was my point as well. I don't think we'll get any answer.

Oxford the hugely vast majority of believers and non believers don't have a problem with eachother. They do not need to believe the same things to speak to eachother with respect and understanding. All that is needed is respect for our shared humanity.

What is sad is when people choose to insult, ridicule or diminish others for not believing what they do.

was that to me about faith in my book?

like i said in an earlier post religion works around peoples lives, how life was 100, 200 or 800 years ago people could still live as much of a religious life as they can now

people can recognise that life is in how we live day to day was different but that what ever religion they are following can still be followed if it couldn't then i guess all these religions would not have people still believing them it is not fear that keeps people believing it is faith