Discuss this story!

a reply to: Kusinjo

And just to clarify.... Lack of belief is not the same thing as belief.... It relies on evidence and critical thinking.... Belief relies on self imposed ignorance and delusion....



The first thing required of religion is to suspend disbelief and just believe. Believe without any proof. Believe because someone told you to. You have to.

Work at believing, practice believing. Accept it. This requires denial.

Then you must not question the denial.

The sure bottom line is believe or else...

Then you must resist questions from others.

That’s serious. That’s why religious belief is so serious and people that have worked all this denial into their mind consider it an attack to challenge their beliefs.

You have to pretend to know.

What some have been convinced into believing has no real basis in fact, so the structure of belief is kind of flimsy and doesn't stand up to questioning. To remain in denial it requires one to get upset. To call questions an attack. To evade questions there are no answers to...

...because we don't really know but have to pretend we do.

Which makes us "know-it-alls".

So there is no new information allowed either.

Stuck in their beliefs.

PA

a reply to: Kusinjo

In the interests of clarity, which god are you referring to?
I've prepared a list for you....
Adad, Adapa, Adrammelech, Aeon, Agasaya, Aglibol, Ahriman, Ahura Mazda, Ahurani, Ai-ada, Al-Lat, Aja, Aka, Alalu, Al-Lat, Amm, Al-Uzza (El-'Ozza or Han-Uzzai), An, Anahita, Anath (Anat), Anatu, Anbay, Anshar, Anu, Anunitu, An-Zu, Apsu, Aqhat, Ararat, Arinna, Asherali, Ashnan, Ashtoreth, Ashur, Astarte, Atar, Athirat, Athtart, Attis, Aya, Baal (Bel), Baalat (Ba'Alat), Baau, Basamum, Beelsamin, Belit-Seri, Beruth, Borak, Broxa, Caelestis, Cassios, Lebanon, Antilebanon, and Brathy, Chaos, Chemosh, Cotys, Cybele, Daena, Daevas, Dagon, Damkina, Dazimus, Derketo, Dhat-Badan, Dilmun, Dumuzi (Du'uzu), Duttur, Ea, El, Endukugga, Enki, Enlil, Ennugi, Eriskegal, Ereshkigal (Allatu), Eshara, Eshmun, Firanak, Fravashi, Gatamdug, Genea, Genos, Gestinanna, Gula, Hadad, Hannahanna, Hatti, Hea, Hiribi, The Houri, Humban, Innana, Ishkur, Ishtar, Ithm, Jamshid or Jamshyd, Jehovah, Jesus, Kabta, Kadi, Kamrusepas, Ki (Kiki), Kingu, Kolpia, Kothar-u-Khasis, Lahar, Marduk, Mari, Meni, Merodach, Misor, Moloch, Mot, Mushdama, Mylitta, Naamah, Nabu (Nebo), Nairyosangha, Nammu, Namtaru, Nanna, Nebo, Nergal, Nidaba, Ninhursag or Nintu, Ninlil, Ninsar, Nintur, Ninurta, Pa, Qadshu, Rapithwin, Resheph (Mikal or Mekal), Rimmon, Sadarnuna, Shahar, Shalim, Shamish, Shapshu, Sheger, Sin, Siris (Sirah), Taautos, Tammuz, Tanit, Taru, Tasimmet, Telipinu, Tiamat, Tishtrya, Tsehub, Utnapishtim, Utu, Wurusemu, Yam, Yarih (Yarikh), Yima, Zaba, Zababa, Zam, Zanahary (Zanaharibe), Zarpandit, Zarathustra, Zatavu, Zazavavindrano, Ziusudra, Zu (Imdugud), Zurvan
China (170):
Ba, Caishen, Chang Fei, Chang Hsien, Chang Pan, Ch'ang Tsai, Chao san-Niang, Chao T'eng-k'ang, Chen Kao, Ch'eng Huang, Cheng San-Kung, Cheng Yuan-ho, Chi Po, Chien-Ti, Chih Jih, Chih Nii, Chih Nu, Ch'ih Sung-tzu, Ching Ling Tzu, Ch'ing Lung, Chin-hua Niang-niang, Chio Yuan-Tzu, Chou Wang, Chu Niao, Chu Ying, Chuang-Mu, Chu-jung, Chun T'i, Ch'ung Ling-yu, Chung Liu, Chung-kuei, Chung-li Ch'an, Di Jun, Fan K'uei, Fei Lien, Feng Pho-Pho, Fengbo, Fu Hsing, Fu-Hsi, Fu-Pao, Gaomei, Guan Di, Hao Ch'iu, Heng-o, Ho Po (Ping-I), Hou Chi, Hou T'u, Hsi Ling-su, Hsi Shih, Hsi Wang Mu, Hsiao Wu, Hsieh T'ien-chun, Hsien Nung, Hsi-shen, Hsu Ch'ang, Hsuan Wen-hua, Huang Ti, Huang T'ing, Huo Pu, Hu-Shen, Jen An, Jizo Bosatsu, Keng Yen-cheng, King Wan, Ko Hsien-Weng, Kuan Ti, Kuan Ti, Kuei-ku Tzu, Kuo Tzu-i, Lai Cho, Lao Lang, Lei Kung, Lei Tsu, Li Lao-chun, Li Tien, Liu Meng, Liu Pei, Lo Shen, Lo Yu, Lo-Tsu Ta-Hsien, Lu Hsing, Lung Yen, Lu-pan, Ma-Ku, Mang Chin-i, Mang Shen, Mao Meng, Men Shen, Miao Hu, Mi-lo Fo, Ming Shang, Nan-chi Hsien-weng, Niu Wang, Nu Wa, Nu-kua, Pa, Pa Cha, Pai Chung, Pai Liu-Fang, Pai Yu, P'an Niang, P'an-Chin-Lien, Pao Yuan-ch'uan, Phan Ku, P'i Chia-Ma, Pien Ho, San Kuan, Sao-ch'ing Niang, Sarudahiko, Shang Chien, Shang Ti, She chi, Shen Hsui-Chih, Shen Nung, Sheng Mu, Shih Liang, Shiu Fang, Shou-lao, Shun I Fu-jen, Sien-Tsang, Ssu-ma Hsiang-ju, Sun Pin, Sun Ssu-miao, Sung-Chiang, Tan Chu, T'ang Ming Huang, Tao Kung, T'ien Fei, Tien Hou, Tien Mu, Ti-tsang, Tsai Shen, Ts'an Nu, Ts'ang Chien, Tsao Chun, Tsao-Wang, T'shai-Shen, Tung Chun, T'ung Chung-chung, T'ung Lai-yu, Tung Lu, T'ung Ming, Tzu-ku Shen, Wa, Wang Ta-hsien, Wang-Mu-Niang-Niang, Weiwobo, Wen-ch'ang, Wu-tai Yuan-shuai, Xi Hou, Xi Wangmu, Xiu Wenyin, Yanwang, Yaoji, Yen-lo, Yen-Lo-Wang, Yi, Yu, Yu Ch'iang, Yu Huang, Yun-T'ung, Yu-Tzu, Zaoshen, Zhang Xi, , Zhin, Zhongguei, , Zigu Shen, , Zisun, Ch'ang-O
balto slavic: (125)
Aba-khatun, Aigiarm, Ajysyt, Alkonost, Almoshi, Altan-Telgey, Ama, Anapel, As-ava, Ausaitis, Austeja, Ayt'ar, Baba Yaga (Jezi Baba), Belobog (Belun), Boldogasszony, Breksta, Bugady Musun, Chernobog (Crnobog, Czarnobog, Czerneboch, Cernobog), Cinei-new, Colleda (Koliada), Cuvto-ava, Dali, Darzu-mate, Dazhbog, Debena, Devana, Diiwica (Dilwica), Doda (Dodola), Dolya, Dragoni, Dugnai, Dunne Enin, Edji, Elena, Erce, Etugen, Falvara, The Fates, The Fatit, Gabija, Ganiklis, Giltine, Hotogov Mailgan, Hov-ava, Iarila, Isten, Ja-neb'a, Jedza, Joda-mate, Kaldas, Kaltes, Keretkun, Khadau, Khursun (Khors), Kostrubonko, Kovas, Krumine, Kupala, Kupalo, Laima, Leshy, Marina, Marzana, Matergabiae, Mat Syra Zemlya, Medeine, Menu (Menulis), Mir-Susne-Khum, Myesyats, Nastasija, (Russia) Goddess of sleep., Nelaima, Norov, Numi-Tarem, Nyia, Ora, Ot, Patollo, Patrimpas, Pereplut, Perkuno, Perun, Pikuolis, Pilnytis, Piluitus, Potrimpo, Puskaitis, Rod, Rugevit, Rultennin, Rusalki, Sakhadai-Noin, Saule, Semargl, Stribog, Sudjaje, Svantovit (Svantevit, Svitovyd), Svarazic (Svarozic, Svarogich), Tengri, Tairgin, Triglav, Ulgen (Ulgan, lgn), Veles (Volos), Vesna, Xatel-Ekwa, Xoli-Kaltes, Yamm, Yarilo, Yarovit, Ynakhsyt, Zaria, Zeme mate, Zemyna, Ziva (Siva), Zizilia, Zonget, Zorya, Zvoruna, Zvezda Dennitsa, Zywie
Hindu (72):
Aditi, Adityas, Ambika, Ananta (Shesha), Annapurna (Annapatni), Aruna, Ashvins, Balarama, Bhairavi, Brahma, Buddha, Dakini, Devi, Dharma, Dhisana, Durga, Dyaus, Ganesa (Ganesha), Ganga (Ganges), Garuda, Gauri, Gopis, Hanuman, Hari-Hara, Hulka Devi, Jagganath, Jyeshtha, Kama, Karttikeya, Krishna, Krtya, Kubera, Kubjika, Lakshmi or Laksmi, Manasha, Manu, Maya, Meru, Nagas, Nandi, Naraka, Nataraja, Nirriti, Parjanya, Parvati, Paurnamasi, Prithivi, Purusha, Radha, Rati, Ratri, Rudra, Sanjna, Sati, Shashti, Shatala, Sitala (Satala), Skanda, Sunrta, Surya, Svasti-devi, Tvashtar, Uma, Urjani, Vach, Varuna, Vayu, Vishnu (Avatars of Vishnu: Matsya; Kurma; Varaha; Narasinha; Vamana; Parasurama; Rama; Krishna; Buddha; Kalki), Vishvakarman, Yama, Sraddha
Japan (53):
Aji-Suki-Taka-Hi-Kone, Ama no Uzume, Ama-terasu, Amatsu Mikaboshi, Benten (Benzai-Ten), Bishamon, Chimata-No-Kami, Chup-Kamui, Daikoku, Ebisu, Emma-O, Fudo, Fuji, Fukurokuju, Gekka-O, Hachiman, Hettsui-No-Kami, Ho-Masubi, Hotei, Inari, Izanagi and Izanami, Jizo Bosatsu, Jurojin, Kagutsuchi, Kamado-No-Kami, Kami, Kawa-No-Kami, Kaya-Nu-Hima, Kishijoten, Kishi-Mojin, Kunitokotatchi, Marici, Monju-Bosatsu, Nai-No-Kami, No-Il Ja-Dae, O-Kuni-Nushi, Omoigane, Raiden, Shine-Tsu-Hiko, Shoten, Susa-no-wo, Tajika-no-mikoto, Tsuki-yomi, Uka no Mitanna, Uke-mochi, Uso-dori, Uzume, Wakahirume, Yainato-Hnneno-Mikoi, Yama-No-Kami, Yama-no-Karni, Yaya-Zakurai, Yuki-Onne
India (43)
Agni, Ammavaru, Asuras, Banka-Mundi, Brihaspati, Budhi Pallien, Candi, Challalamma, Chinnintamma, Devas, Dyaush, Gauri-Sankar, Grhadevi, Gujeswari, Indra, Kali, Lohasur Devi, Mayavel, Mitra, Prajapati, Puchan, Purandhi, Rakshas, Rudrani, Rumina, Samundra, Sarasvati, Savitar, Siva (Shiva), Soma, Sura, Surabhi, Tulsi, Ushas, Vata, Visvamitra, Vivasvat, Vritra, Waghai Devi, Yaparamma, Yayu, Zumiang Nui, Diti
Other Asian: (31)
Dewi Shri, Po Yan Dari, Shuzanghu, Antaboga, Yakushi Nyorai, Mulhalmoni, Tankun, Yondung Halmoni, Aryong Jong, Quan Yin , Tengri, Uminai-gami, Kamado-No-Kami, Kunitokotatchi, Giri Devi, Dewi Nawang Sasih, Brag-srin-mo, Samanta-Bhadra, Sangs-rgyas-mkh, Sengdroma, Sgeg-mo-ma, Tho-og, Ui Tango, Yum-chen-mo, Zas-ster-ma-dmar-mo, Chandra, Dyaus, Ratri, Rodasi, Vayu, Au-Co
African: 250 Gods, Demigods and First Men
Abassi , Abuk , Adu Ogyinae , Ag, Agwe , Aida Wedo , Ajalamo, Aje, Ajok, Akonadi, Akongo, Akuj, Amma, Anansi, Asase Yaa, Ashiakle, Atai , Ayaba, Aziri, Baatsi, Bayanni, Bele Alua, Bomo rambi, Bosumabla, Buk, Buku, Bumba, Bunzi, Buruku, Cagn, Candit, Cghene, Coti.....
There'

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Yes, that one.

my belief is all the different names created by all the different religions are all just different ways of referring to the same single creator of all that is.

I dislike preachy folks, and absolutely detest one's who post scripture. And I firmly believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs without being attacked for having them.

But this being a discussion site, it's just that. The OP is searching for discussion about his/her belief in God. (I am sure the thought of winning a debate is in there somewhere as the ego exists on this site in every post)

I guess I have a hard time understanding why a non believer would even bother posting in a thread like this if they weren't interested in a discussion. Do you have any thoughts on that?

a reply to: Kusinjo

That's not exactly a story. It's Christian propaganda using a false analogy. We know there is life after delivery because we are all living it. We DO NOT KNOW that there is life after death because there is absolutely no evidence of anybody ever living after being dead. It would be a complete guess, regardless of a hypothetical conversation amongst babies in a womb that aren't anywhere near capable of thinking on that level. I get the point, but it's essentially romanticism with life after death. Christians will enjoy it, but rational people will think it's silly and rightfully so. Change 'mother' to aliens, Santa, the great alligator in the sky, etc and it is the same exact thing. An appeal to ignorance. I get emails like that all the time with made up stories about morality and god from my Christian Aunt. There's isn't an ounce of truth in any of them.

originally posted by: Barcs
We DO NOT KNOW that there is life after death because there is absolutely no evidence of anybody ever living after being dead.

Actually, that's not accurate. There is a huge amount of evidence for NDE's. The problem is, it's only hearsay, or personal testimony. But it's very interesting to research.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Barcs
We DO NOT KNOW that there is life after death because there is absolutely no evidence of anybody ever living after being dead.

Actually, that's not accurate. There is a huge amount of evidence for NDE's. The problem is, it's only hearsay, or personal testimony. But it's very interesting to research.

It actually IS accurate that we do not know. Near death experiences are exactly that. Near death. They aren't after death, and there is only subjective evidence to even begin comparing people's personal experiences. I just don't see how seeing a white light and other hallucinations while your brain is dying is evidence of an after life. Do people really expect to be clear headed while they are dying?

I'm not against the idea of reincarnation or afterlife in the least, but a made up story about a fetuses having an adult philosophical conversation supposedly suggesting that there is an afterlife is a bit over the top, IMO, and is typical of the Christian propaganda I read all the time in those silly chain emails. Made up stories to sell a belief system.

a reply to: Barcs

In some of the cases, the person was clinically dead for a period of time. I agree that the best you can find for evidence there, is someone's word, but as I mentioned, the stories are compelling to read. My father had an NDE, and while I don't expect he would lie to me about that, what he described could just be memories/dreams.

I am not delusional and don't expect there to ever be any "hard evidence" for life after death. (that's part of the fun, knowing that the only way to know for sure is to be dead for good) But my faith doesn't hurt and it only costs as much as I am willing to give.

So in a way, I kind of agree with you. But the person who had an NDE, much like a person who saw a UFO by themselves, doesn't need validation to know what they saw. (it would just help when telling the story)

originally posted by: network dude
So in a way, I kind of agree with you. But the person who had an NDE, much like a person who saw a UFO by themselves, doesn't need validation to know what they saw. (it would just help when telling the story)

This is true, however, if somebody sees a UFO, they saw it with their eyes and utilized their senses in the real world (or they lie), whereas with an NDE they could easily just be dreaming / hallucinating, so they, themselves do not even know if it is real or not. This is why I give more credit to UFO reports than to NDEs. Yeah, you don't need validation for a personal experience, but NDEs aren't even that. It's like having a dream about a UFO and comparing it to real world UFO reports. Even as a personal experience, NDEs don't prove anything in relation to spirit / afterlife.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

...The OP is searching for discussion about his/her belief in God. ...

Discussion, no. Confirmation of his belief, yes. An opportunity to proselytize, yes.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

...
I guess I have a hard time understanding why a non believer would even bother posting in a thread like this if they weren't interested in a discussion. Do you have any thoughts on that?

The non-believers were the ones attempting to engage in discussion. They were asking questions and making points. How did you miss that? By "interested in discussion" do you mean interested in confirming the OP's beliefs?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Barcs
We DO NOT KNOW that there is life after death because there is absolutely no evidence of anybody ever living after being dead.

Actually, that's not accurate. There is a huge amount of evidence for NDE's. The problem is, it's only hearsay, or personal testimony. But it's very interesting to research.

Hearsay and personal "testimony" is not evidence. In order to be evidence, something has to be testable. Yes, it is something to research but research involves obtaining and testing evidence.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Barcs
We DO NOT KNOW that there is life after death because there is absolutely no evidence of anybody ever living after being dead.

Actually, that's not accurate. There is a huge amount of evidence for NDE's. The problem is, it's only hearsay, or personal testimony. But it's very interesting to research.

It actually IS accurate that we do not know. Near death experiences are exactly that. Near death. They aren't after death, and there is only subjective evidence to even begin comparing people's personal experiences. I just don't see how seeing a white light and other hallucinations while your brain is dying is evidence of an after life. Do people really expect to be clear headed while they are dying?

I'm not against the idea of reincarnation or afterlife in the least, but a made up story about a fetuses having an adult philosophical conversation supposedly suggesting that there is an afterlife is a bit over the top, IMO, and is typical of the Christian propaganda I read all the time in those silly chain emails. Made up stories to sell a belief system.

I agree with both parts of your post. The story about fetuses having a conversation is an example of the child-level stories that appeal to fundamentalists. When we were children, we believed that Brer Rabbit was chased by angry farmer Brown when he went into his garden and the lesson that it is dangerous to go where we are told to not go (another version of not eating from the Tree of Knowledge). That fundamentalists expect stories of that level to be meaningful to adults suggests that those stories are meaningful to them. They don't understand why non-fundamentalist adults aren't sitting open-mouthed in wonderment at the telling.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Barcs

In some of the cases, the person was clinically dead for a period of time. I agree that the best you can find for evidence there, is someone's word, but as I mentioned, the stories are compelling to read. My father had an NDE, and while I don't expect he would lie to me about that, what he described could just be memories/dreams.

I am not delusional and don't expect there to ever be any "hard evidence" for life after death. (that's part of the fun, knowing that the only way to know for sure is to be dead for good) But my faith doesn't hurt and it only costs as much as I am willing to give.

So in a way, I kind of agree with you. But the person who had an NDE, much like a person who saw a UFO by themselves, doesn't need validation to know what they saw. (it would just help when telling the story)

As your doctor will tell you, clinically dead is not actually dead. Clinically dead refers to a machine reading and is a stage of dying.

Don't confuse believe with know.

a reply to: Kusinjo

That's absolutely beautiful and I never would have thought of it that way. Are there other stories of this nature available?

I might mention I'm here as someone who was always agnostic as most optimistic, mostly atheist. Eventually my personal philosophy shifted and I love reading religious texts, including the Bible. The most important thing I learned that allowed me to give all religious texts another look is that the Christian Bible doesn't promote the fear, violence and bigotry so many "Christians" seem to propagate. Christianity above all is loving, and I'd argue no fear merchant speaks for the God of my understanding.

I didn't get brain damage or go crazy, I'm not victim to some cultural Stockholm syndrome, I just get it. I don't consider myself to belong to any particular mainstream sect, but the existence of God seems to be gaining traction. I friggin love science and the more particle physics we understand the more we see just what a complexly finely attuned system the universe is, and I like to think there's an intelligence of some kind responsible, even if only in the form of a natural law of sorts. I don't believe in an anthropomorphized god with all the trappings of human consciousness, the God of organized religion has always been too small.

It's all about how you interpret the words you read in the Bible. I believe language is faulty as is translation so the message is what you take from it. As with everything though, I encourage you leave what doesn't work for you, but seek to gain a deeper understanding. I believe the existence of God to be unknowable empirically by science so I allow myself to indulge in believing something I can't prove, but can experience in my own way.

ATTENTION:

Please stay on topic and stop back and forth bickering. Sometimes civil discourse means you simply have to agree to disagree.

I couldnt take the story seriously, fetus can't speak, that would make them people.

Oh, the stuff people come up with when they can't actually argue their position.

This "story" is of course, simply an argument from faith, couched in jargon with the device of fetuses i nthe womb in an attempt to make it seem "extra thoughtful."

The problem is, of course, that the argument from faith just doesn't work. Can't work. here's why.

The core premise is that God can only be known through faith. since the faithful are already faithful, this argument is only presented to skeptics - who, by definition, do not operate on faith. Instead, they operate on evidence. However, the one and only scrap of 'evidence' offered for God by the faithful... is their own faith. Which again, the skeptic cannot perceive or experience or interact with in any way.

So, the argument from faith, when applied, melts down into an argument from popularity - "I believe in god; ergo, god is real." Of course, skeptics are no more likely to believe in god because someone they meet does, than they are to jump off a cliff because their friends do.

So in the end, the faithful present an argument that they know can't possibly work because of its inherent flaw, and hte base nature of it which wouldn't work on anyone, even themselves. So what is the argument from faith?

mental masturbation for believers, nothing more. They use it to feel smarter than and superior to those who con't share their religious convictions, even though it is demonstrably a fallacious and fairly dumb argument.

a reply to: MoonBlossom

I really think that some people around here would debate a thread about navel lint! lol

Not the lint....but "if Adam was made in mans image does that mean that god has a navel?"