Pete

A transference object can relate to a child with a teddy bear that gives them confort, cuddles, and company when away from their parents love. A mental mechanism is a reaction to protect the security of an individual. For example blaming something upon another when the conflict is within them or denying something to protect from anxiety. Frued believed that religion is a form of a mental mechanism because its belief helps an individual cope with the struggle and pain of life. Although Frued is ssid to be dated now, however he was the first to recognise the influence of the past and developmental stages. I am not saying that we should destroy another's faith but I am interested in your thoughts on whether you think religion is a mental mechanism or indeed a transference object. I hope for enlightened discussion.

What is, I can relate too. Beyond that I use the word "if" a lot. I just do not see beyond that or see any real evidence. Dan has his beliefs but I cannot share it or want too. We are at opposite ends of the universe.

Totally agree. He help me go from liberal Christian to Agnostic too. I just got to the point where I thought arguing semantics over a 2-3 thousand year old dodgy highly edited set of scripts was ridiculous. In the end I just thought "I just don't care". However I believe that if there is a God then the bible is no proof of that.

I know Dan will stick to his rigid position. Agnosticism is ready to change given evidence to believe else wise. Fundamentalism will never change. Agnosticism is not indecisive, it is being open to facts and not just going with some whimsical unprovable belief system. However, Jonathan I do not expect an open talk with Dan. All he believes is believe his view or your wrong. How credible is that for open honest debate. Frustrating!

It is pointless accusing an agnostic of inflexibility because it's very nature is flexibility in the face of evidence. Unlike fundamentalism which says a thing is despite the evidence to the contri or lack of evidence. Agnosticism is flexible.

Yes! Values are important. The values change with each others assessment. That said anothers values I may respect but not agree with. I said it before that in my life and in my work as a Nurse I have witnessed a gut full of pain. This leads me to the conclusions if god exists he does not care in this life and the gods lack of interventions suggests to me the god if god does exist is helpless or just does not care. God is not good. I am sure others will disagree but that is where values come in, yet values are not evidence.

The question is a strange one for me. Should I believe in something that has no tangible evidence or not. Given the possible things that could be believed that have no tangible evidence. Differing religions, UFOs, and the many conspiracy theories. Why believe this one. I need much more.

In social science I think there are links between religion and qualitive evidence based based around an assertion and the benefits of the assertion. Much of psychotherapy is also based around qualitative working. The problem it has is when one looks at quauntative science and having to prove the assertion and its benefits that religion falls flat where psychology rises. Mainly because beyond the assertion of a religion there is no credible evidence except the assertion. Any way that's how I see it.

I just take Genesis 1 to be the myths of bronze age people. It is hard for me to see Genesis 1 as literal as it talks of days, morning, evening etc. All of which need a Sun to create. Interestingly the Sun was not created to the third day. I see this as poetic conjecture. It holds importance because of its historic view point but not as a scientific fact. If a God created all then this proposition of Gen 1 is not plausible as a means of creation. This and there is 13 billion light years across the known universe and many stars we cannot see with our eyes.. That is just the known universe. For all this to be about just the creation of this planet beggars belief for me. If there is a God then Gen 1 is not accurate for me.

I would be so happy if I am wrong.

I have not heard from luis since the hurricane. I have seen news reports about his home town . The hurricane rushed the sea in and it caused a huge landslide and thousands of people were washed into the sea. It looks bad and it seems we may of lost Luis. I beg your prayers and wishes for our friend Luis.

One thing I see as a problem with some groups. They start as an open and friendly and then start to seek purism of their viewpoint. This leads to hostility between the group considered pure and those not of the same persuasion. It then breaks up and the purests seek ever more purity of vision until they break up again. The problem is they force people to leave and make it unpleasant to join for new people. I use "purest" nominally.

True. Have I walked into a previous debate.

Exactly. What would be the point.

I use the title Agnostic but most think of that title as being Atheist. I feel the two are different but accepting of one another. I have always thought Agnosticism as being the only open and scientific position. I may not believe in Christianity and I definitely do not believe the bible. Does God exist? I am only left with who knows. As it is at present the evidence shows as very unlikely and it is not likely as we can see it as things are at present. If I could see evidence to the make me change my mind I am open but I do not see it empirically or scientifically. For me that is the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism. In my opinion, One definitely does not believe there is a God and the other does not see it and does not think there is any way of knowing it at present. All I know is until there is proof I do not care. How others see things may of course be different.

If no one ever believed in gods then that would be the norm and the need to call someone atheist would not arise. It has arisen because some do believe in gods or spirits.hence the need to distinguish.

That has to be true . If everyone was atheists then we would not need to use the term of distingion.

It has taken me a long time to be able to get hold of research into religious history. I think it is a political thing. If people are meek and submissive to religious leaders they are more manageable. The trouble is many of these religions worked in there own states but now the world is getting smaller they are crossing each other and so there is conflict. Secularism works for both states but religion does not but each state continues to promote it and so there is conflict even to the point of terrorism. One madness verses another. That coupled with the struggle for power in this world it just makes a terrifying soup of hatred.

In the UK religious prejudice is right up their with rascism. The Christians hate it because they cannot preach about their hate of Islam. Now that is fun.

Some Islamic states kill atheists. Its all to protect an unsubstantiated belief and put it beyond question. Scrutiny is unwelcome. It is all a front. The bible says specifically that you should not make oaths or swear by it. It is just political bull. Message. Do not question me.

Thanks Von.

I am back. I just needed to talk about something personal. Thanks for being there for me Jonathan. I used to have a friend who was a staunch Atheist Marxist. He always said the best way to deal with religion is to ignore it and do not give it the attention it thrives on. He would laugh and just walk away. They would get infuriated. He would say give them attention and you give them undeserved power. As long as they are getting attention or persecution they will just will continue to feel they are legitimate. It is an interesting approach.

I will chat with Johnathan. I do have an issue of conflict but this is difficult to talk about. Thanks everyone. It is to do with grief and loved ones.