Which brings us back to proof vs faith and why some of the bible you take as literal and some not......................

lol, I think I will

one thing though - it is important for me to stress I don't go on about atheism, outside of scoobynet, in that militant Dawkins manner - which I fully accept can get irritating,

in fact I would not even use atheist to describe myself tbh

I listen to my twins talk about it with fascination, they are 9 but obviously are beginning to take a view on it all - they go to a CofE school

Sorrel, the girl "believes" I think, which is fine by me I will let her find her own way - I certainly don't push my "beliefs" onto them

Prosper, can't get his head round much else other than football and Arsenal so the conversations between them are quite short!!! lol

Which leaves me referring you back to this post:

https://www.scoobynet.com/1034784-sc...l#post11801146

Well bless you for that. I'm reminded of Matthew 19:14. And bless little Prosper, I was absolutely pre-occupied with football and particularly Plymouth Argyle when a boy.

When I asked what meaning your life had etc. I deliberately used hyperbolic language to drive home the point that for some, Godlessness can lead to a nihilistic and despairing life when they're confronted with the big questions. Not everyone can console themselves with a tremendous family and the wonder and deep mystery of the universe in the way you do. I hope you recognise that, and I hope that in some way you'll develop a less sneering attitude towards people of reasonable faith.

well, that is a little unfair

my post was design to dispel that - for instance we are quite good friends with the local parish priest etc

I would never describe me as (and I don't think anyone who know me would) sneering

Yes, poor choice of words, just my experience of you over the years and your attitude towards faith. Perhaps I've misunderstood. I apologise.

Anyway, if you wouldn't describe yourself as an atheist, what would you describe yourself as?

LOL the people with imaginary friends are never left lonely when the real friends may let them down. A good psychiatrist would pass your imaginary friend as a valid tool to keep you sane, and let you be; depending upon the degree of your obsession with your imaginary friend and if this obsession is not coming in a way of your life.

oh you mean people who live their life by a book/books written thousands of years ago

Yes, what's wrong with that? As long as they're living their lives by good things written in those books, we should be proud that our ape-derived forefathers and foremothers were capable to conceive such good thoughts even thousands of years ago.

Do we have to follow everything written all those books like a gospel? Excuse the pun, but I don't think so. For example, hypothetically, if a book says- 'Kill thy neighbour as thyself', you're not going to do that, are you? It's possible that the book states so in application to some super-charged fantasy story, but we know that we shouldn't be doing that over a fence or a cat poo matter or something like that.

Books are books as a source of knowledge and they can sculpt our thinking. They're not responsible for the brain that we already have; that sculpts our thinking.

I don't go around shooting people like James Bond does, even when I admire Bond films. So, why should I follow any book written thousands of years ago or even yesterday; like a mindless fool, hm?

The whole world changed with the birth of the Internet

ape derived forefathers , i take it you believe darwin then despite loads of other evidence saying different, and the living by the rules of books from thousands of years ago, i ment idiots like witnesses who won't have a blood transfusion, because the book says thou shalt not take blood, i mean as if transfusions where available when those books where written, modern day interpretations to suit, almost as bad as the jihadis, just using it to suit their means,

Not sure what you're saying here, are you saying you don't believe Darwinian evolution as there is loads of evidence against it?

Amen to that!

How?? I mean, in the context of what's being discussed here? :confused: