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 think the idea of love must come from outside ourselves is only counter intuitive in the sense that it doesn't fit with with some people's wishful thinking (that is emphatically not meant as an insult). I think just because you think something would be somehow nicer if it wasn't part of our genes, our brains and a product of evolution doesn't mean it isn't so.
I don't think a scientific explanation of love diminishes it any more than a scientific explanation of stars diminishes their beauty. I think it's wonderful that we have all these feelings. I think people's love of God is but a weak shadow of sexual passion or parental adoration.
But of course, comparing God and love is like comparing apples and steamrollers - most of us do accept that love is something that exists inside us and cannot, for example, alter the laws of physics in order to see everyone in the world at the same time, while communicating telepathically with everyone all at once.

I didn't convince you with my explanation then mabanana?

I enjoyed that link, Ruty. Actually I think that some christians are indeed splendid examples of super-niceness and do propagate it.

In response to wehaveallbeenthere - slight difference in emphasis required I think. Not a question of "proof", more one of formulating a theory and then seeing if there is evidence for it. And then seeing if there is evidence against it. And then balancing the two.

It's time for (drum roll)...

regulars know what is coming...

my favourite diagram

Its so nice to know that I can shun MN for months and come back for more of the same arguments and another viewing of The Diagram. I really must bookmark it and send to my DH, he will love it.

Ah, still at it I see. This is one of those "I know why animals eat their young" times.
The middle child has come home wanting to do a school "fund raiser".
The husband has forgotten to pay the car insurance.
The ...ah fooey, they are back. Later.

Atheists are in the 'improve theory' loop of the diagram. If we find new evidence we could end up needing a new idea, but it's all going OK so far. There is no 'wrong' - there is only the scientific method [unclefluffy exaggerates for effect]. Maybe we should all go back to the Large Hadron Collider thread and start again.

Well it's just as much bullshit and special pleading as the rest of the arguments people come bleating out with in defence of their imaginary friends. It still boils down to 'There is something out there, there is, there is*, waaaaaaaah!'
And it doesn't convince. If you've got objective proof, come back and try again. but a twinge in your right ovary from time to time doesn't count as proof of anything to anyone else.

grimma - believe me, I get fed up with saying the same thing over and over just as much as anyone. It's just a pity it's still necessary. The reason atheists appear to repeat themselves is not that they don't have any other arguments - its just that there is only the one argument really needed. And we have to find different ways of saying it.

in response to justaboutagrownup's point - sorry, I had to read it several times because either a) I am dim or b) it is so woolly and fluffy. All of that starts from the presumption of a god, unfortunately. Even if the chance of being wrong was as high as 20%, I'd still not consider it being worth devoting my life to. It's like staking my house on Trinidad and Tobago to win the World Cup.

it is rude to use the term 'imaginary friend'

stitch - see my post of Sat 06-Sep-08 22:24:09 in which I attempt to explain the whole "imaginary friend" thing, or at least my rationale behind it.

Well yes it is bloody rude but TBH I don't do religion if anyone wants to that's fine by me I won't insult anyone because of it but I hate people who are preachy they should be ridiculed

Also is there any point in talking about religion at all? Relgion is the root of wars!

[sigh]

Except that, pace UQD's diagram, most reasonable religions don't 'ignore contradictory evidence'.

For example, I'm guessing that most educated RCs don't believe in creationism. Even the pope doesn't believe in creationism. Most don't believe in a blanket ban in contraception.

Things do change--more slowly than some would like, but they do change and incorporate scientific discoveries.

justaboutagrownup; this is quite interesting...

mamadiva it's a gross oversimplification to say 'religion is the root of wars!' But if we accept that statement as true, do you not think that talking about it and attempting to share viewpoints in a constructive and intelligent manner, is actually one of the most useful conversations we could have?

UQD - the difficulty with your diagram for me is that it has very little in common with how I actually live my life.

There are two aspects of my faith:

1. belief in the existence of God
2. how I work through the rest of my life and decisions, with that assumption

I accept that there is no scientific evidence for 1 - my own private experience is not convincing to anyone but myself. However it is convincing to me. There is therefore no evidence for the existence of God, and also no "contradicting evidence", only the lack of evidence. So, I don't ignore any contradicting evidence.

For 2 - apart from making one assumption which you don't share, I pay the same attention to the logical and rational arguments for and against things as anyone else. Therefore, on a subject like evolution, I work completely from the "science" column - do not ignore the evidence that life on earth developed by a process of evolution, and I adapt my theory of how the world is according to the genuine evidence that can be seen.

Faith in reality does not "keep idea for ever", it changes with time to incorporate new ideas. It may be slow to do this, as any body with a large membership has a lot of inertia, but it does do it.

What does "honouring and witnessing the love of God in action" actually mean though? Whose action? What actions? Whose love, yours or God's?
As for "atheists are wrong too, because they refuse to acknowledge that the unanswerable question is not necessarily a red herring, but might lead somewhere that remains unknowable for now?"
What is "the unanswerable question" that may or not be a "red herring"?
If you mean, 'is there a God'? Then I tend to agree with UD. I gather you mean one of the fleeting contemporary Gods such as the Christian God, or Allah (or perhaps Ganesh etc?) well, I assume you have no trouble not believing in Thor or Venus or Bastet or Huitzilopochtli? You think there is no evidence for them and their myth systems are unlikely? And you don't feel a gap in your life for not believing in them? And you don't fear for your eternal soul because you don't believe in them? Well, welcome to my world!

IMO religion is the cause of most wars that and greed. I'm not saying this is how it should be or that it is always this way but I do believe that the misinterpretation of religion causes wars. I know what I mean.

For example people of Islam are not evil it is because there has been a misinterpretation somewhere along the line that a few of them think it's okay to kill innocent people and that is what their god wants when it is totally against everything there religion is.

But, if there wasn't any religion, don't you think the same people would still go to war for other "reasons"? The greed, the tribalism, the unequal division of resources, the old grudges, all these things would still be there if there was no religion.

People can be pushed by governments and other organisations into doing things for reasons which sound convincing - like religion yes, but also "national security" and "regime change" and "fighting terrorism" - when in fact the reasons for wars underneath these excuses are often very different.

this thread is like most religion threads, most people clapping their hands firmly over their ears and shouting loudly at the top of their voices.

Question: Stephen Hawking's theory of radiation, which he proposes will 'zap' microscopic black holes when they are created in the Hadron particle collider as they emit radiation, is just that, a theory. Held up by mathematics, but not proven. [I think he has also presented a mathematical model for a designer/creator too actually] So, as it is unproven, are you lot saying, 'nope, it does not exist, not until i get proof'. Incidentally Hawking has not been given the Nobel Prize yet because they require experimental evidence to support a theory, but they are happy enough to take the risk of starting up the particle collider and create microscopic black holes based on his theory. So many theories in science are just that, theories, unproven. I don't believe or disbelieve in them, but would find it rather reductionist if someone said, nope, don't believe in them as there is no evidence.

The fight for democracy has caused more deaths than religious wars. Resisting Stalin and Hitler caused millions and millions of them. Add in 'smaller' skirmishes like Bosnia and Kosovo and you'll add more.

Even if you started with the Crusades and added in the 100 Years War and all the Tudor persecutions you'd never reach that total, even adjusting for the difference in population sizes then and now.

Perhaps we should say that democracy is the cause of so many deaths that we shouldn't bother trying to defend it?

Good god(oh the irony of that comment) I'm off out of this thread I was just making a point and have apparently set off a riot!

LOL well it is a religious thread and my opinion was that .... well point proven

ruty, The Diagram answers your point pretty eloquently.

mamadiva - you haven't 'set off a riot'. You have merely had your 'point' challenged. If your response to that is to run away, then I hardly think you've proved anything about religion...