Are people who believe in God delusional?

Post Reply New Topic

It sounds like Jesus is committing blasphemy by saying humans are their own gods and then Jesus's followers twisted his message to avoid prosecution and being wiped out. He went from being God to son of God which was more acceptable, but not much more. It took a while to catch on.

No. There is no evidence to what you are saying. John's Gospel is evidence enough to refute what you are saying. The opening words: "...and the Word was God....and the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us .... as many as received him, to them he gave the power to become the sons (Greek word here is for an adopted son) of God and we have seen the glory of the Only-Begotten Son (Greek word here is for a son proper) of the Father."

1) Word took flesh = Only Begotten Son of God = God
2) Son of God gives to those who believe in him the status of sons (by adoption) of God, not equal to God, but possessive of a special relationship.

More evidence: the earliest followers of Christ the Son of God defended his divinity as being coequal with the divinity of the Father, against those who tried to make of him anything less than God. We know this because we have their writings.

It's only settled in your own mind. We don't know that the Big Bang was the actual beginning, it only appears to be a local beginning. If God can be infinite, then the universe could be infinite. The universe could also be uncaused, lots of quantum mechanical effects like nuclear decay are also uncaused. And the total energy of the universe is practically zero, so it didn't require any energy inputs (causes) to occur. The cause of the Big Bang could also be another universe.

And it remains there is no evidence for the god hypothesis.

Whenever folk try to turn me to worshiping a triune god through their clever use of words, I simply read Daniel 7 and 1st Corinthians 15.

YHWH translates as he is or he will be.

ruveyn

Only if you treat YHWH loosely as either a qal or hif'il verb form. Such an interpretation is considered specious by most scholars.

Maybe it's a pun done on purpose to be enigmatic?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0klSfx--n8[/youtube]

- This way, you are delusional if you hold any belief about any question that is unproven. It would mean you have to go through life never taking any action on a basis of likelihood or balance of evidence.

There is no item accepted by everyone as proof either for or against life after death, but there is claimed evidence, i.e. ghost stories. Against them there is a claimed arbitrary insult, made unevidenced, that says ghost stories are a psychiatric symptom. - Something we don't want to be real must conveniently always be delusional because we say so and we are the boffins so there.

Personally I happen to think life after death is proved by an experience we all share: sentient serial time. Each event experienced at a point in time is experienced as a happening, its entire reality as happening includes passing into the resultant state that it has happened. Without this it has not happened, the state of having happened is innate to the fact of happening. But the state of having happened is a succeding moment, a later point in time, it comes after the moment of happening. It shows that every moment, to really happen at all, innately includes that a successor moment happens. This holds both for the moment's objective reality outside us in happening, and for the sentient experience of it. A time line is a phenomenon whose reality perpetually makes its own following reality. This makes it an infinite succession incapable of ending.

Your time line of sentient experience can never end. But your body does end. Hence they can't be the same thing.

Just because your time line can't end does not mean it can't jump, relative to the timeline of the world around you. Only end points have been disproved. gaps are not disproved, and obviously the evidence of experience is that gaps do happen: any unconscious state, non-dreaming sleep. It does not disprove that when you die it might be a billion years before your next experience - I don't believe it will be, but this proof does not disprove that it will. The only thing it proves is that there will be a next experience at all. That whenever you are unconscious, your time line is jumping relative to the outside world's timeline, and your past conscious existence is still making unbreakably inevitable your future conscious existence.

The question of how jumps happen comes after the proof that they do. You could postulate Planck times being distended, or a wavelike effect relative to the world timeline. But the absence of an perfectly made model for how time jumps happen does not overturn that they do, because that is established from the observed evidence of the time experience's entire nature.
Every time you try to model the screen going blank, you picture a change, from not blank to blank. A change is an event. So you can only picture it including picturing its end state. But in picturing its end state you are still there observing it. But because you are still there observing it, it's not a blank.

It's still psychological the way I see it. It's not like you've shown any evidence that it was remarkably supernatural. All you described was how you felt (which is part of what psychology is about).

I agree that John, implicitly at least, states that Jesus is meant to be God. But do be aware of the timeline in which this Gospel was written.

Ever noticed how neither Matthew nor Mark nor Luke ever allude to Jesus as God but, at most, son of God?

I do not believe Jesus is anymore God than you or me. If Jesus's original meaning is that we are all our own god, which it could have been, the authorities would have wigged hearing that and might demand his death, then I agree with him. We all contain God. Jesus was, most likely, engaged in metaphysics, philosophy and theology including mysticism. I believe he wanted to over throw the Jewish leaders and the Roman rulers. He wanted his own state where his followers and he were in charge. He challenged God.

After his crucifixion, his followers had the same dilemma many celebrities face today, how to stay relevant in an ever changing world full of people with short attention spans. Celebrities today would kill for Jesus's PR department.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSFZvR-ssuk[/youtube]

Agreed! However, I find it amusing that some fundamentalists (I never understood how such a silly philosophy can be fun. Tho to be honest being silly is fun) strongly disagree with the big bang, while in most respects it dove tails with the idea of a creation that happened at a particular point in time.
I guess that it is because of their basically anti-science stance. They do not even believe in global warming (because their religious beliefs have been co-opted by the oil industry)! They agree with oil executives (actually oil executives believe in global warming. *They are just more concerned about short term profits) even tho global warming dove tails with end of the world prophesy.
* They are not idiots! They know that when EVERY scientific organization in the world (of national or international standing) actually agrees ( that AGW is real) it is probably not a conspiracy started by bigfoot or the masons.

God doesnt exist http://godisimaginary.com/i14.htm . I wished him away with a genies lamp.

Big Bang was just God throwing a firecracker is all.