[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's the same as any thread about religion. The sniggering and the lols that insinuate people who don't believe in God are somehow superior because people who DO believe are obviously gullible and not quite so intelligent. There's Alex calling people stupid and "idiots"... honestly, it wears me out.

I don't care whether you believe in God or not, or whether Trumpet or anyone else doesn't believe but I feel people who do believe have to constantly defend themselves from the ridicule.

The truth is, I have as much evidence that God exists as anyone on here has of him not existing - ie: none.

My post that you've quoted wasn't "ripping the piss" out of that girl at all and I find it extremely insulting that you would accuse me of "ripping the piss" out of a woman who suffered such a horrible crime. If anything I was making a joke of the suggestion by Kirk (sorry kirk, it was lighthearted) that anyone would see a vision of Richard Dawkins in a situation like that

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Livia

As if to illustrate my point.

What do you expect in reply to your condescending post Livia.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

My post that you've quoted wasn't "ripping the piss" out of that girl at all and I find it extremely insulting that you would accuse me of "ripping the piss" out of a woman who suffered such a horrible crime. If anything I was making a joke of the suggestion by Kirk (sorry kirk, it was lighthearted) that anyone would see a vision of Richard Dawkins in a situation like that

Well, I'm sorry you're insulted, Niamh, but I did find your post to be ridiculing the woman in that situation, regardless of how it was meant.

Originally Posted by bobnot

What do you expect in reply to your condescending post Livia.

Bob, every thread that has anything to do with God and religion ends the same way. Please don't try to pretend your post was a reaction to what I said. You probably would have posted it anyway despite the fact this is supposed to be 'serious debates'. People who believe in God are always ridiculed on here, but any time someone bites back, it's condescending.

I have yet to see a serious religious person on this forum ridicule and try to belittle atheists. It's just a shame that doesn't work in reverse.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I dont think anyone is ripping the piss, the comments are rather normal and logical

What she said was she saw an image from something she saw as a child and KL is somehow trying to make it all supernatural

with very little success

If you say that her vision was psychologically induced in a time of great stress, and was based on something she saw in childhood which was buried deep in her subconscious - as opposed to her Atheist conscious - then that is a perfectly feasible and valid viewpoint. But you have not the right to presume that I am "somehow trying to make it all supernatural" , because that was not in my original premise.

I merely posed the question,of why did an atheist see a vision of Jesus, as opposed to other deities or even inspirational figures from her own life.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I would genuinely welcome other FM’s thoughts and responses on this, but would make an appeal for those responses to be civil, rational, and relevant, so that this – potentially, fascinating and thought-provoking - thread is not prematurely ‘closed’ by the moderators because it has descended into the usual, abuse riddled, illogical melee, which all topics on religion seem to cause on here. So here goes:

On the 22nd of January 1992, Estate Agent Stephanie Slater was abducted by Michael Samms. During her captivity, she was raped, then blindfolded, had her feet and hands shackled, and forced into a laid down modified 'wheelie bin' which was far too small to accommodate her. She was suffering so much physical pain, in addition to her psychological and emotional trauma that she vainly tried to kill herself in that pitch-black prison by forcing her mouth and nose into a cloth and suffocating herself.

In the depths of her despair, and despite the blindfold and darkness, Stephanie 'saw' a bright light. In this light Jesus Christ appeared to her. After this ‘vision’, Stephanie said that she felt strangely 'at peace' and found the resolve to live through her ordeal.

Now, the strange thing is; that Stephanie was always an atheist prior to this, and cannot understand why it was Christ who appeared to her.

Incidentally, anyone who knows Stephanie Slater - or who has read her articles, or watched the various documentaries in which she features - knows that she is a thoroughly grounded, highly intelligent and rational woman not given to hysterics, hallucinations or delusions. She does however, now believe in God.

There are diverse logical reasons why so many people believe in God (whichever God that may be) but I just wonder why it wasn't Richard Dawkins who appeared to her.

The Brain does indeed play some strange tricks on people when they are under conditions of extreme stress or hunger or dehydration (or a combination of all 3).

I suggest that the brain increased the amount of endorphines/adrenaline and/or endogenous Dimethyltryptamine which is found in very small quantities in the pineal gland.

These chemicals , scientists say are responsible in part for the wild dream state and other out of body states in which hallucinations are experienced.

Maybe in this womans extremely disturbed state she had these visions. And as she survived her ordeal part of her may have attributed the vision as being a sign from a Deity.

This vision could have been the sign that a confirmed atheist would need in order to start believing.

On the other hand, it may actually have been a vision from Christ....




.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

If you say that her vision was psychologically induced in a time of great stress, and was based on something she saw in childhood which was buried deep in her subconscious - as opposed to her Atheist conscious - then that is a perfectly feasible and valid viewpoint. But you have not the right to presume that I am "somehow trying to make it all supernatural" , because that was not in my original premise.

I merely posed the question,of why did an atheist see a vision of Jesus, as opposed to other deities or even inspirational figures from her own life.

and you have had your answer from many diff posters

its hardly rocket science

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Well, I'm sorry you're insulted, Niamh, but I did find your post to be ridiculing the woman in that situation, regardless of how it was meant.



Bob, every thread that has anything to do with God and religion ends the same way. Please don't try to pretend your post was a reaction to what I said. You probably would have posted it anyway despite the fact this is supposed to be 'serious debates'. People who believe in God are always ridiculed on here, but any time someone bites back, it's condescending.

I have yet to see a serious religious person on this forum ridicule and try to belittle atheists. It's just a shame that doesn't work in reverse.

How was I ridiculing the woman? It was Kirk that suggested someone seeing Richard Dawkins, that idea to me is really funny, why would anyone see a vision of Richard Dawkins, he's not exactly a comforting figure. Glad to know you think that lowly of me though that I'd mock a woman who was kidnapped and raped, cheers for that.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Livia

Bob, every thread that has anything to do with God and religion ends the same way. Please don't try to pretend your post was a reaction to what I said. You probably would have posted it anyway despite the fact this is supposed to be 'serious debates'. People who believe in God are always ridiculed on here, but any time someone bites back, it's condescending.

I have yet to see a serious religious person on this forum ridicule and try to belittle atheists. It's just a shame that doesn't work in reverse.

You entered the thread with the default standpoint of your point of view being superior to anybody else's that has shown the audacity to not be religious and that to not be religious is somehow offensive and inferior. I have never passed judgement on anybodys religion nor have i ever ridiculed anybody for their beliefs but it pisses me off when anybody of any religion jumps on the superiority train or even (as the opening post in this thread suggested before it was edited) trys to suggest their standpoint is in any way better than anybody elses.
The victim standpoint is just low if you are going to jump on the this is always the way they react train then expect to get picked up on it.


edit: Damn this is a crap post but yes Livia you annoyed me

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bobnot

You entered the thread with the default standpoint of your point of view being superior to anybody else's that has shown the audacity to not be religious and that to not be religious is somehow offensive and inferior. I have never passed judgement on anybodys religion nor have i ever ridiculed anybody for their beliefs but it pisses me off when anybody of any religion jumps on the superiority train or even (as the opening post in this thread suggested before it was edited) trys to suggest their standpoint is in any way better than anybody elses.
The victim standpoint is just low if you are going to jump on the this is always the way they react train then expect to get picked up on it.

edit: Damn this is a crap post but yes Livia you annoyed me

????????????????????????? And how did you deduce that from me stating that in my opinion most atheists ask a question of people of faith, then refuse to listen to, or accept the answer, usually through bigotry. No I did not specifically use the words; "In my opinion" but I expected that this much would be clear based on the fact it is me posting.

I edited that line out purely because I am a reasonable person, didn't realise that it could be misconstrued, and did not mean to cause unnecessary offence which was not my intention.

I don't know you or how many posts on these various 'religious' threads you have actually read, but you are way off the mark if you really think it is 'anybody of religion' who 'jumps on the superiority train' because - in my opinion - the polar opposite is true, and as Livia so rightly points out, it is people of faith who dare to post who are immediately berated, made to appear like 'nutters', and put on the defensive.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

And let us not forget how the thread started



" Originally Posted by kirklancaster "

There are diverse logical reasons why so many people believe in God (whichever God that may be) but most atheists (not all) question then refuse – usually through bigotry - to listen to the answers.


Kirk later omitted this when it was pointed out by Kyle

So what's you point. Read my response to other posts of a similar ilk to save me duplicating.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and you have had your answer from many diff posters

its hardly rocket science

It's not science at all - and neither are your responses which you seem to pass off as irrefutable truths.

[lostalex]

the truths, jesus never claimed to be god. it was his acolytes that used his name to gain power.

Jesus never claimed to be the son of God, he said that we are ALL children of God.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

The Brain does indeed play some strange tricks on people when they are under conditions of extreme stress or hunger or dehydration (or a combination of all 3).

I suggest that the brain increased the amount of endorphines/adrenaline and/or endogenous Dimethyltryptamine which is found in very small quantities in the pineal gland.

These chemicals , scientists say are responsible in part for the wild dream state and other out of body states in which hallucinations are experienced.

Maybe in this womans extremely disturbed state she had these visions. And as she survived her ordeal part of her may have attributed the vision as being a sign from a Deity.

This vision could have been the sign that a confirmed atheist would need in order to start believing.

On the other hand, it may actually have been a vision from Christ....

.

Excellent Nedusa.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

????????????????????????? And how did you deduce that from me stating that in my opinion most atheists ask a question of people of faith, then refuse to listen to, or accept the answer, usually through bigotry. No I did not specifically use the words; "In my opinion" but I expected that this much would be clear based on the fact it is me posting.

I edited that line out purely because I am a reasonable person, didn't realise that it could be misconstrued, and did not mean to cause unnecessary offence which was not my intention.

I don't know you or how many posts on these various 'religious' threads you have actually read, but you are way off the mark if you really think it is 'anybody of religion' who 'jumps on the superiority train' because - in my opinion - the polar opposite is true, and as Livia so rightly points out, it is people of faith who dare to post who are immediately berated, made to appear like 'nutters', and put on the defensive.

Thats a lot of question marks.
Can you point me to the post where someone called you a nutter please because i dont see it i think you might have confused people who dont hold the same viewpoint as you thinking people are calling you a nutter.

You need to calm down a bit and then you might stand a chance of not offending people before you have even finished making your point and pretending someone made you look like a nutter when they didnt just comes across as a bit strange.
All the best to you though and have a great day.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's the same as any thread about religion. The sniggering and the lols that insinuate people who don't believe in God are somehow superior because people who DO believe are obviously gullible and not quite so intelligent. There's Alex calling people stupid and "idiots"... honestly, it wears me out.

I don't care whether you believe in God or not, or whether Trumpet or anyone else doesn't believe but I feel people who do believe have to constantly defend themselves from the ridicule.

The truth is, I have as much evidence that God exists as anyone on here has of him not existing - ie: none.

First Livia, I am sorry that your post has brought you so much flak. Secondly, I endorse everything you have to say. It is B.S. to say; "nor have i ever ridiculed anybody for their beliefs ..." as BobNot does, then go on to post the 'flag' and comment "Amen to that". Just as its B.S. for LT to needlessly post an image of the Veronica Cloth, call it "an hankie", then add a "TeeHee" emoticon, if he isn't taking the piss and ridiculing.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't give a flying monkeys, because - as I said earlier, I am 1000% rock solid in my beliefs, very comfortable in my own skin, and know what I know.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

First Livia, I am sorry that your post has brought you so much flak. Secondly, I endorse everything you have to say. It is B.S. to say; "nor have i ever ridiculed anybody for their beliefs ..." as BobNot does, then go on to post the 'flag' and comment "Amen to that". Just as its B.S. for LT to needlessly post an image of the Veronica Cloth, call it "an hankie", then add a "TeeHee" emoticon, if he isn't taking the piss and ridiculing.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't give a flying monkeys, because - as I said earlier, I am 1000% rock solid in my beliefs, very comfortable in my own skin, and know what I know.

what flag did i post.
Can you tell me please why you are so offended and put out by the fact i dont subscribe to your brand of religion.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

It's not science at all - and neither are your responses which you seem to pass off as irrefutable truths.

it is science, it is a story about the brain and human stress

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Thats a lot of question marks.
Can you point me to the post where someone called you a nutter please because i dont see it i think you might have confused people who dont hold the same viewpoint as you thinking people are calling you a nutter.

You need to calm down a bit and then you might stand a chance of not offending people before you have even finished making your point and pretending someone made you look like a nutter when they didnt just comes across as a bit strange.
All the best to you though and have a great day.

Thank you Bobnot, and you have a good day too.

I didn't actually say that anyone had called me a 'nutter', I said 'made to appear like 'nutters'.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

First Livia, I am sorry that your post has brought you so much flak. Secondly, I endorse everything you have to say. It is B.S. to say; "nor have i ever ridiculed anybody for their beliefs ..." as BobNot does, then go on to post the 'flag' and comment "Amen to that". Just as its B.S. for LT to needlessly post an image of the Veronica Cloth, call it "an hankie", then add a "TeeHee" emoticon, if he isn't taking the piss and ridiculing.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't give a flying monkeys, because - as I said earlier, I am 1000% rock solid in my beliefs, very comfortable in my own skin, and know what I know.

Can I remind you Kirk that you were the one who started this thread and invited the discussion, you posted this story without a link so LT found a link to the story himself and got more information on it then you gave. The Veronica Cloth was referred to as a Handkerchief by the lady herself and imo was a major piece of this story that was omitted, as it shows that Stephanie was in fact recalling a memory. When you were asking Why Jesus and not anyone else, this kind of gives that answer or atleast a possible answer

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Can I remind you Kirk that you were the one who started this thread and invited the discussion, you posted this story without a link so LT found a link to the story himself and got more information on it then you gave. The Veronica Cloth was referred to as a Handkerchief by the lady herself and imo was a major piece of this story that was omitted as it shows that Stephanie was in fact recalling a memory when you were asking Why Jesus and not anyone else, this kind of gives that answer or atleast a possible answer

Bang on right neem



The fact she recalled a picture of jesus from an image that had an effect on her as a child is of course key but isnt that supernatural

I get the feeling its this lady's way of dealing with her own situation and I think we should leave it at that

[billy123]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Thank you Bobnot, and you have a good day too.

I didn't actually say that anyone had called me a 'nutter', I said 'made to appear like 'nutters'.

Look im not a religious person nor do i judge anyone that is religious infact i don't judge anybody based on belief,sexuality,colour of skin or anything other than how they behave as a person i treat them based on how they treat me and that's it everyone is equal and i wish everyone thought the same.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Bang on right neem



The fact she recalled a picture of jesus from an image that had an effect on her as a child is of course key but isnt that supernatural

I get the feeling its this lady's way of dealing with her own situation and I think we should leave it at that

Yeah, I'm done now tbh, I thought we were having a pretty civilised discussion about it but clearly I was mistaken

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

it is science, it is a story about the brain and human stress

You are presuming and passing off your presumption as fact. A psychological reason for her 'vision' is just one of the potential reasons, and is - like any others - hypothesis, not irrefutable fact. So while exploring that reason in this context is perfectly valid and fulfills the brief, it is ludicrous to proffer an hypothesis as fact.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah, I'm done now tbh, I thought we were having a pretty civilised discussion about it but clearly I was mistaken

I'm sorry to hear this Niamh, because genuinely, I felt your posts fulfilled the brief, and for myself I did not take any umbrage at anything you said. I posted what I did to secure intelligent viewpoints and though yours were counter to my beliefs, that is exactly what I got from you.

I even understood your little 'rise' about Dawkins because -to be honest - I did put his name in there through a sense of mischief.

Anyway, thanks for the brief exchange.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I'm sorry to hear this Niamh, because genuinely, I felt your posts fulfilled the brief, and for myself I did not take any umbrage at anything you said. I posted what I did to secure intelligent viewpoints and though yours were counter to my beliefs, that is exactly what I got from you.

I even understood your little 'rise' about Dawkins because -to be honest - I did put his name in there through a sense of mischief.

Anyway, thanks for the brief exchange.

No worries