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.

Really?? Surely tipsy is the only way to settle into long discussion on the nature of the cosmos! Have a nice evening

Cathpot, I too mostly find myself inclined towards the idea that the human need to believe in God can be explained in psychological an evolutionary terms. But I am also very aware that I am the product of an unusually anthropocentric time and culture, and my thinking is largely determined by this. So I am not quite prepared to dismiss the religious experience of billions as an adaptive delusion.

Regarding your point of the problem of the term religious being too broad a label: there are many many Christians who understand the bible in symbolic and metaphorical - emphatically not literal - terms. I don't think it makes sense to exclude them from a definition of "religious".

SuperSillyus, The DharmaGates article is a brilliant example of how someone can twist words to suit what they have decided it should say.

I imagine that "thou shalt not kill" meant you should not 'kill' or repress that part of you that really wants to commit murder.

If God is 'eternal love' and all versions of religion are attempts to put into words our sensing of his eternal love, then why have most gods through history been so cruel, vicious, imaginatively sadistic, violent and capricious? Is this an attempt to get in touch with God's eternal hate?

I remember that Dawkins interview with Ruth Gledhill and thinking at the time that there was a bit of leading questioning going on.

here is the whole thing if anyone is interested.

I think I get Iorek's distinction, but I don't quite get that my definition of what I understand people to mean by "god" comes out of literal reading of the Bible. The god I don't believe in probably is culturally specific, I accept that - I don't see how it could be anything else. So is the god most people believe in.

Obviously "betting your house" is metaphorical. If you believe in god it seems to me that this defines the way you see the world. It changes your behaviour. It affects the whole way you act on Earth. I know - as far as anyone can "know" anything, before anyone accuses me of arrogance - that this earthly life is all there is. Based on the existing evidence.

So I'm determined to enjoy it to the full, and not see it as a rehearsal. Of course, if evidence comes along of an afterlife, I'll read it with interest. That's what being an atheist is all about, pace the strawman definitions which some theists are more comfortable with. It's not remotely closed-minded - it's about assessing the evidence you have now, rather than putative evidence which may or may not be there.

I personally think the idea that best explains the universality of religion is that we have evolved to make connections and look for explanations for everything. This is how we learn, but also how we make mistakes. Obviously without science, we simply could not begin to explain how the sun rose or plants grew, so invented explanations - supernatural ones. All wrong, of course.
Add to that our fear of death and hey presto, religion.

Hey jahc.

Iorek,- but what do you mean by religious experience of billions? the huge majority of those billions people dont experience any concrete manifestations of god/s ie dont hear or see anything to do with god, they believe in whatever god prevails in their culture.The fact that alot of people believe it does not make it any more right.In fact past a critical number I imagine it makes it more likely for people to believe as not believing involves swimming against the tide.

I fully agree that I am the product of atheist parents and a science background, it would be very interesting to know how we would have turned out in a different place, different time. Because of my place and time I have options to believe or not believe and most importantly I have in science an alternative to religion which gives me the answers.

Broad minded christians willing to debate the very existence of god with atheists like me do not worry me at all because I suspect they would uphold my right to believe what I like, but I would argue that that is absolutely not the majority of christians. I finally told a group of kids I was teaching in africa (just before they left, and a small group I had a really good relationship with) that the reason I didnt go to church was I did not believe in god. They were, astonished. I mean utterly astonished. It wasnt even a possiblity for them. One girl immedately asked me if I was a satan worshipper. They were polite to me but bemused. Polite society in the Uk is not where the bulk of christians are. Dawkins is right in my opinion to rail against religion not because of the nice reasonable reflective people calling themselves religious, but because worldwide we are looking at very large numbers of people ordering their lives and more importantly their state, based on belief in deities for whihc there.is.no.evidence. And futhermore (she says waving her glass- not far behind you jahc)basing their behaviour and their state, on beliefs that are actively hostile to other people.

at the risk of stating the obvious, the problem is cathpot, if you took religion away, those people would find something else to base their behaviour and state on, some other belief that is hostile. If everyone agreed today that there is no God, do you really think, a la Imagine, that we would all live in harmony? As i said before, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity have pacifism as central to their teacings, anyone who pretends otherwise has a hidden [or not so hidden]agenda.

Religions have always been a way of controlling large groups of people. Given human nature that power is typically used to oppress or kill some other group. Yes, if religion didn't exist they'd look for another way, but religion does exist and is a threat to the lives and freedom of those who do not join it.

And it's possible to disapprove of the cynical control of large groups of people through religion even if it wasn't a threat.

have emailed you justabout.

Onager I think when the words were first written down, people would have had a different understanding to the ones we have. So I think understanding the historical context gives us a better understanding.

The image of Jesus ...meek and mild so we must all be like that is rubbish in my opinion. Jesus wasn't being very meek when he turned over tables and told people to stop selling things in his fathers house.

Jesus was not a 'christian'...it hadn't been invented yet, he was a Jew, and the Romans were crucifying so many people at that time that they ran out of wood. Would he not have been trying to help his people to stand up to oppression non violently? I don't think he was just telling them to take it all lying down because they would go to heaven.
But of course the words are open to interpretation!

I would love to see the big religions letting go of the dogmatics. I don't know why religions are so afraid to change when usually they started in a revolutionary way struggling through oppression always to end up becoming the oppressor down the line sort of thing . (sighs)

I actually have ended up giving up on religion but I admire people for sticking with it and becoming part of the solution from within.

ruty- you are right of course, people will always find some sort of ideology to get behind religious or otherwise. I would not advocate ending religions, as I have said before, I think religious belief often serves a purpose for the idividuals concerned, and as you have pointed out it wouldnt result in some peaceful nirvana of rational thought. However, I absolutely believe religion has no place in the workings of the state. You are also right that the major religions have quite a bit to say on the 'be nice to people' front, but there are also key areas of intolerance and these matter when laws governing everyone are based on them. I am arguing here for secular democracy, which is not perfect but I think is the best of the options we have come up with to date.