to think it is rude to persistently refer to God/Allah/etc. as an "imaginary friend"

[AtheneNoctua]

even after asked not to by several posters who have stated they found it offensive.

i want to be part of justabout's church. You give me faith in the Cofe actually justabout. You and Marina.

Its all biochemistry Niecie. Here's a little experiment for you. Take some MDMA and you'll quickly gain an understanding of the biochemical basis of love

Oh, and wehaveall been there I hate to disapoint you "the Islamic religion has been around a lot longer than the Christian ones mind you...that is a fact" is a load of bollocks. Islam is about 1600 years old. It claims the Jewish patriarchs as its progenitors, but then again, so does Christianity. In fact, for many years after its foundation, Islam was commonly viewed as a Jewish sect.

meditation can bring about a similar experience to MDMA though slug. [tries to extricate herself from yet another God thread.]

i can say that having tried both.

Niecie "Christians have evidence of God so they do accept him..."

No they don't. They have evidence of their own belief in a god, and the difference this belief makes to their own lives.

"what is there to fear?"
Death. Nothingness. Not being the centre of the universe. Having to deal with the reality of the present with no promise of a shiny afterlife. Responsibility. The fact that sometimes, shit happens.

Just for starters...

As an atheist (well, a humanist, if we're flinging labels about), I find all those things quite thrilling.

andiem - there is an element of subjectivity in all evidence, particularly outside of the physical sciences, probably even in those areas too since any result is subject to interpretation. As I say it is an on-going debate in many subjects so yes, you may think that the idea doesn't hold water but that doesn't mean that it doesn't.

Why does proof have to be available to all in order for something to exist? There are creature, insects for example, that exist on this planet that nobody has seen and nobody knows about and yet they still exist. They are there to be found - us finding them doesn't suddenly make them exist, they were always there.

Besides which there are scientists who understand the empirical evidence and yet still think that there is a God and that the evidence points to this. Being a scientist and Christian are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to give up being one in order to be the other.

Almostblue - No, for a lot of people, the evidence comes before the belief, it is what makes them believe in the first place.

What is so thrilling about nothingness? It isn't anything to be frightened of but why is it thrilling?

Why would believers fear not being the centre of the universe? They don't believe they are anyway - if you have faith in God you must necessarily believe that he is the centre of the universe.

Responsibility - surely you have none if you don't believe as all that is left after death is nothingness. Your actions carry no consequences beyond the here and now.

Obviously shit happens - we all have free will and none of us are perfect. Even if we were all believers we would make mistakes, bad things happen to good people. How does a belief in God protect you from that - it doesn't.

Agree about the meditation ruty. There's some interesting research about the brain and the experience of god. It's been well documented for years how epilepisy in a well definied spot on the temporal lobe can induce the experience of religious extacy. It's even been named the 'god spot'.

Stimulation of the frontal lobes by a mild electrical current can give the impression to many (though, interestingly not all) of an unseen presence nearby, which may go a long way towards the experience of ghosts.

It's interesting to think that some people are simply incapable of experiencing religion because of the way their brains are wired. Now if you go down the traditional Christian route of "to know him is to love him" and "God made us all" Then it becomes an interesting moral conundrum that god, who apparantly wants us to know him (Uggh, male pronouns) yet makes a large percentage of the population physically incapable of doing so. Not particularly omnipotent or all loving is it?

"Almostblue - No, for a lot of people, the evidence comes before the belief, it is what makes them believe in the first place."

What evidence? Do you have an example? Or is it not true that the belief informs the 'evidence'?

"What is so thrilling about nothingness? It isn't anything to be frightened of but why is it thrilling?"

I suppose it makes the everythingness of now, that bit more intense. It's extreme. It's uncompromising. It makes our existence all the more astonishing and wonderful.

"Why would believers fear not being the centre of the universe? They don't believe they are anyway - if you have faith in God you must necessarily believe that he is the centre of the universe."

Ah, but to be the chosen creatures of the being at the centre of the universe is surely the next best thing?

"Responsibility - surely you have none if you don't believe as all that is left after death is nothingness. Your actions carry no consequences beyond the here and now."

Do you seriously think that to reject a reward in the afterlife precludes one acting with responsibility in this life? Of course my actions carry consequences beyond the here and now; life will continue after my death, and what I do while I am alive, not least with regard to the raising of my children, will have effects both instant and lasting.

And I don't give myself the option of a quick confession twixt cup and lip, either. I have to take personal responsibility for what I do, because no deity is giving me instructions, dangling carrots, or waving sticks.

I never understand the argument that the good that I do somehow doesn't count because I do it without expectation of a supernatural pat on the head.

"Obviously shit happens - we all have free will and none of us are perfect. Even if we were all believers we would make mistakes, bad things happen to good people. How does a belief in God protect you from that - it doesn't."

Belief in god allows one to suggest that the death of a child, for example, is 'all part of His Loving Plan'. I can see how that might be comforting; but I don't buy it, myself. I'm also not easy with the notion that 'God' decided I should be born into the relative luxury of the modern western world; whilst other women of my age live lives of unimaginable hardship in famine-stricken Africa, or war-lashed Afghanistan.

To clarify: I'm not actually that troubled by what others choose to believe. I do find religious debate fascinating, though (as long as people steer clear of the 'ahaaaa!' approach....)

ah but slug christians [and i assume people of other faiths] usually experience lengthy periods of doubt and uncertainty. They may have experienced something strongly for a moment, even a split second, but then it is gone just as quickly, and then you have to decide whether to build your life around that or not. Speaking personally, the moments i have experienced in meditation and prayer, etc, are not as important to me as the impression certain people [Christians] have left upon me, in their outlook and the way they live their lives, and Christ's teachings themselves [largely misunderstood and misinterpreted] former Archbishop Michael Ramsay called himself a Christian Agnostic, which i find helpful. So i don't think it is, or should be anyway, just about the gut 'spiritual' moments that some people have and some don't.

niecie tell us what is the evidence then that makes people believe before they have faith?

and in experiments the results are analysed in a purely statistical manner so are as objective as they can be

and if we are going to talk about subjectivity then any qualitative research should be equally as robust because the methodology that you use should provide evidence via a research trail that you have replicated and reinforced the experiences you have uncovered so even in this field there should be validity and reliability in the results that you find
qualitative and experential findings are not and should not be subjective they should be the result of methodological rigour and to have any meaning to a wider population should be replicable within that population

Almostblue - you suppose that believers only do good because they will get their reward in heaven but just like everybody else they do good because they think it is the right thing to do not because of any reward they get. Whoever said the good you do doesn't count just because you don't believe? You can't take responsibility for it though once you have died and disappeared into nothingness can you? You have ceased to exist. Your actions may have reprecussions after your death but you'll never know about it. Besides, do you really think that non-believers have an monopoly on selflessness?

People aren't chosen to be believers they make the choice to believe. Again, that doesn't make them the centre of the universe.

Believing in God doesn't give you carte blanc to do what you like because you know you will be forgiven. That isn't how it works at all.

For me, the difficulty with evidence is that what I believe in is simply not susceptible to scientific evidence. I know that sounds like a cop-out, and it is one of the reasons why I would never attempt to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong.

I believe that God is something/someone within which the whole Universe exists. And the universe operates completely according to scientifically explainable processes. The fact that I believe those processes were put in place by God rather than a random accident is not something which there would be any way to prove.

Beyond that, I believe that I experience the existence of God as a presence - but I know that experiments can show that neurons in my brain will be firing when I experience that, and it can be shown that this is something which could be happening by chance or faulty wiring.

I believe that Jesus Christ was God Incarnate, and would have been able to prove it if he had chosen to - but when challenged/tempted he would not do so.

So, I can't provide any scientific evidence, and I don't think that anyone could. But I still believe.

And I do agree with others on here that to tell unbelievers, or those who believe something different, that they are missing something is very arrogant and insulting.

In a sense, I suppose I do think that they are missing something - since I think that I experience something which they do not.

But I think that people are not in any way incomplete or imperfect without it - they are just as capable of being good, and caring, and reaching moral decisions. Or not, depending on their personality and circumstances.

And I don't think that everyone who doesn't have it has any sense of something missing, or envies those who have it. Some do - some people are conscious of the feeling that there is something else which they can't quite get a hold of, but not everyone.

The amount of 'good ' I do asn't changed since I got my faith, actually as my family ahs grown it has shrunk, though I still work hard to do my bit when I can. I have had a religious 'experience' but apart from helping make a spiritual decision it didn't change much in practical terms, as I always tried to follow my interpretation of the Christian message in the Bible. My parents are fiercely Atheist (my degree broke their hearts LOL), but Mum does hold Jesus to be perhaps the greatest Philosopher that ever lived.

I am perfectly aware that the 'experience' might have been triggered in my brain, but my faith has improved my life in that I have a bigger feeling of cmmunity now (we moved here for Uni which has now finished for me, DH wants to stay for his degree now, the school and Church are as far as I get regarding friends locally sadly). That in turn, with my faith, has helped me cope with some of the things life has thrown- 2 SN ds's and a Dh who spends more time off sick than working atm (mental health issues). Therefore, i'd have to be silly, pragmatically as well as anything else, to not want to believe, wouldn't I?

Mind you I am qute happy to argue for my take on faith (much the same as Ruty's) so I don't feel I need to be part of the side I don't like. Although I try to share a fellowhip with believers I knw, I am not a massive fan of te organisation known as the Church, I dn't think its the true message at all.

people say, aha, you can't prove love but it is real, so you do believe in things you can's see and feel! But there is a huge and fundamental difference between believing in love and believing in god. Of course we believe in a feeling called love. But we accept it is a feeling that comes from inside ourselves and is an emotion that is subject to change. God - according to believers - is not a feeling but an external force that created the world and sees everything that happens in the universe and decides all our fates. Now that I would expect some tangible evidence for.

Squeaky: it's not that the rational are hurt or upset by your assertions. We're laughing tolerantly at you. There there, have a biscuit.

and doing good and feeling empathy have been selected for by evolution. They make us feel great as well as making us more succesful as a family/group/species.

Love - improves the pair bond, therefore selected by evolution.
Altruism - rarer, but found in social animals as it improves your relatives chances of surviving and thriving, therefore in some cases can be selected for by evolution.

(Though, oddly enough your group or species doing well isn't an evolutionary force, beyond your relatives)

mabanana - unfortunately, I'd have to go outside of the universe to look for tangible evidence, which I haven't managed yet.

But if God is controlling everything on earth then surely it is reasonable to expect some evidence of this?
Yes, say, I feel loving and loved. Great, whatever.
But to say, there is a force that made everything, knows everything, controls everything and decides the fate of everything on earth right down to the tiniest sparrow - well, not unreasonable to expect to see a bit of evidence.

But I don't say that God decides the fate of everything on earth, not in the detailed way that you mean. I do believe that God knows everything, but not controls everything. I believe that things happen for the same reasons that you believe they happen (I assume ) - laws of nature, the basic nature of plants and animals, human free will etc.

I just also think that God is able to have a relationship with self-aware creatures like humans, and can communicate with them to suggest actions which are a "good thing".

I came back tonight to see talk of evidence that god exists. Didn't it get posted after all? I was looking forward to that.

OK amis, so what exactly is the method that God uses to communicate? HOw does he do this? And how does he know everything? Does he physically see everything all at the same time? HOw, exactly? These are not unreasonable or disrespectful questions at all.

I suppose being told that it's all part of the Cunning Plan of some invisible superpoweful thing might be a comfort when your entire family have just been brutally murdered and you've developed haemorrhoids, but I tend to think that's another convenient line used by the powerful to oppress the powerless (my invisible big brother says you'll just have to put up with it because it's probably all your fault anyway but you will get a sweetie when you're dead).