Real Question

Are you trying to be thick? He has a superstition--it's a superstition because he believes something without evidence. What he believes is that there is a god--but as he has no evidence, one can only conclude that his friend is imaginary.

You can call God an imaginary friend, but not superstition, people don't pray to superstition. You may argue that praying is superstitious, but I don't think that superstition is anyone's imaginary friend. It's more of an attribute than anything else.

I guess you are thick. I haven't said that superstition is anyone's imaginary friend. "God" is the imaginary friend, and any belief in that for which there is no evidence is supersition. That you can't seem to grasp this is not evidence that i haven't clearly expressed myself.

Oh really?

God help us all if you actually are a novelist--one hopes you have a competent editor. "Imaginary friend superstition" is referential to his delusion, surely even you can recognize that. The second sentence is not written "imaginary friend, (comma) superstition." The sentence does not say that superstition is the imaginary friend. It says that his delusion is a superstition about his imaginary friend.

But you're just playing your typical gobshite game of arguing because you can, and not because you actually have a case. I'll waste not more time on your childish bullshit, clown.

You could have expressed it better, maybe put inverted commas around imaginary friend. There's no need for any of this name calling, I find it quite distressing.

Incidently, my imaginary friend, Herman the six foot hedgehog, is an atheist. He gets into some shocking rows with Teddy, I can tell you.

Wo. I gotta get in on this.

So, you say, if one believes in something without sufficient evidence, than that is "x."

Does 'x" = imagination? delusion? or superstion?

What is the difference between the three?

Lonely perhaps, but lonliness is a poor reason to make a God to make mankind... Perhaps the way to describe the universe is that it is what it is, and all our judgments as to its character are premature...

My point was not about gods, Fido. Actually, I was expressing the hope that somewhere in this universe, beings have evolved past the stage at which we humans are now.

The thought that humans (man) is "the greatest" that exists depresses me.

Apart from Biblical History which shows that satan went from being a spirit to an office, as in: The Devil; it is more rewarding to see the progress of mankind in its spirtual view... Religion as we know it has developed out of naturalism, spiritualism, and animism, and I think that is the correct order... For some primitives, the spirit world is dense with population, and every tree or animal or body of water may be represented as a spirit which might often have to be appeased in order to have its use... What is lacking in primitive peoples in their relation to nature is judgment... They recognize in nature the power to help them, and even to guide them, but they do not see nature as good, or evil; but only powerful... Perhaps this was an alienation of their own power since time has shown us to be far more powerful than any other force of nature, but by the same standard that they did not judge the forces of nature they spiritualized, they did not judge themselves... Like us, they considered their spirits as not unlike themselves, equally greedy, and vain for flattery... The object for people then was the object of people now, and that was the manipulation of their god into doing for them what they could not do... In recognition that nature was power, their gods were power, and it was for the power of gods that men appealed then, as they appeal for the power of God today... Though the Jews have conceived of God as a single being, they also conceived of a dark force, and the Chrisitians multiplied the number of Gods and demigods still further, as did the Muslims in their own way, with the Gins... There is something completely logical in a single God, and the human mind rejects such logic... Even when people reject God entirely, the make fetishes of material objects... We find it impossible to live within our own means, and to see ourselves entirely with our own eyes...With God we have something no one can live without, and that is some being to take the burden of responsibility from our shoulders.. Still, when human beings became self conscious is when they began to judge themselves either good or evil, and then they needed two gods to reflect their nature... The fact is that natural gods cannot be judged good or evil, any more than nature can be judged good or evil because it is unconscious; but to excuse themselves people need two gods...In the ideal, people would not feel alienated from their personal power, and would be responsible for their own morality, and would not feel they have to bury nature with our former gods under megaliths that will prove our common gravestones...

Well, it's a bible. The most interesting part is that Satan is said to be in chains. Satan is an angel who rebelled against God's master plan, whatever that is. And so we are talking more about a real person or being than a metaphysical nature. The demonic angels number at just a few hundred. They are relegated to an immaterial nature, due to being somewhere in chains. Through immaterial nature they are said to "tempt Man" or otherwise destroy his relationship with God, said to. That's evil. The bible is explicit, they are still able to do things, but they are in chains. I think Satan's , or Lucifer's fall, or official position was that angels were superior to Man. Satan's hatred for men and women is nothing people should mess with or begin to believe that Satan will ever truly support Man's quests. That's "evil."