Dear Yuyutsu,

I can think of no reason why, if one decides to believe in God, one should choose the god of the Bible rather than Allah, Thor, Apollo, Krishna or the other gods that humans have created. It is therefore logical for me to believe that the God of the Bible is merely a creation of the human imagination as are the other Gods that humans have worshiped. Humans unable to explain the world have created substances or entities to explain it. Phlogiston, ether to carry light waves and God or gods are examples. We understand enough about physical processes to need a belief in phlogiston and ether no longer. Although there is no evidence that God is anything other than a human invention many continue with that belief.

Eternal life? When we die our body like the body of any other being decays. To be conscious we need to have a brain. Our brain decays after death like the rest of our physical being. What would be the point of eternal life without consciousness? What would be the purpose of eternal life? How would it evolve? If we humans have it why would not walruses and bacteria have it? Life after death is simply another human invention. Apparently it makes death less awful if we can imagine that we continue on after death. There is no evidence to support any existence after death for humans or any other living entity.

Pascal's wager assumes that we should accept Pascal's God rather than the many other gods that humans have invented.

If you need to believe in the God of the Bible and eternal life you will continue to do so. I don't have that need and consider pursuit of God a waste of time. Of course one can consider this post a waste of time also. However, if I may spread understanding and enlightenment I get pleasure. if I don't spread understanding and enlightenment I still get pleasure from this contact with another human.

This discussion seems to have morphed into a philosophical debate whether God exists or not.

David f, although you believe you have the proof there is no God, you do not offer any solid evidence, other than speculation.

There are many unsolved mysteries throughout the universe. How many times during your life have you seen the temperature of the sun or the red spot on Jupiter revised upward. By your logic anything that science doesn't understand or hasn't worked out can be written off as non-existent.

Whether you believe or not doesn't matter. But it is much harder to believe when you refuse to look and/or even open yourself to the possibility. Your comments are clearly those of a non-believer but that doesn't make all the believers wrong, no matter how simple minded you think they are. It's comical to see you refer to your comments as Enlightened.

You need physical proof but it doesn't exist. Believers experience the proof which is beyond the senses. I can tell you what sugar tastes like but you will never know until you actually taste it. Same goes for God. God is there, if you embrace it.

There is a whole lot more to Enlightenment than you can ever imagine David. You need to get outside of your own head, drop your defensiveness long enough to experience the Oneness momentarily; awareness is everywhere all the time (the ultimate observer of quantum physics); know the Awareness and you'll understand you are not your body, your brain, your breath, your thoughts, or even who you think you are. Once you experience your true Self, if even for a few seconds, you'll find there is so much more than you ever perceived possible.

Shadow Minister:

Firstly, if you actually bother to actually read me mate instead of going the verbal, I've consistently argued for much lower tax!
Consistently!

Secondly, I've never ever proposed using super to raise more tax; just remove the current subsidies; which are made good by other taxpayers anyway, mostly the less well off!

There's something wrong with any system that taxes the rich man's secretary much more than the Boss! i.e., 30% for her and 15% for him!

Besides, a stand alone and entirely unavoidable expenditure tax would at the very least, treat all income equally. Be it earned here by tax avoiding billionaire multinationals or the school Janitor!

As for incentives?

Well given pensions are just around 25% of average male incomes, and I'm sure anyone savvy enough to succeed in business/private venture, is going to set aside something to support them in retirement, and in the standard they're accustomed to!?

Besides, I'd make super absolutely compulsory for all income earners; and given the savings inherent in a completely reformed and massively simplified tax act, the rate could be lifted to 15% minimum and made non contributory?

And then paid out as a whole of retirement/lifetime annuity and prepaid burials, so that it does what it's supposed to do, get old folks of off pensions and on to something at least as good as average male incomes!

Which in turn would at least allow the retiree to afford not for profit health insurance, which might include no frills funerals! And we still have a few of those!?

And the later said retirement is taken, the larger the monthly annuity? Or double after 75?

David F: The name I was trying to think of who a surprisingly attractive Margret reminded me of, was a multi talented Audrey Hepburn.
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Clearly some folk treat their money as something they can take with them?

And given that's not possible; and or, the only thing we can take are the memories we built up in this lifetime, then bank as many of those as you can; preferably the good ones!

Which just has to include the delight and the smiles of all those you've helped unbidden, along the way!

And certainly a far better use of surplus capital than mindlessly feeding it into the pokies or trying to buy more shoes than Imelda Marcos?
Rhrosty.

It's funny how these discussions evolve. The Comments section of David van Gend's last article turned into a discussion involving the 9/11 conspiracies.

Yuyutsu,

<<Then what have you to lose?>>

Precious time in the only life we know we're going to have.

ConservativeHippie,

There's a heck of a lot of assertions there about what david f does and does not believe. You don't seem to understand that the default position in any situation is disbelief. The burden of proof is on the believer and until such time as reliable evidence is provided, david f's disbelief is already justified. He doesn’t need an expectation of physical proof for everything, so your, “by your logic …”, remark is fundamentally flawed.

<<Believers experience the proof which is beyond the senses.>>

Convenient that, isn't it? I can justify a belief in anything with "proof" like that.

<<I can tell you what sugar tastes like but you will never know until you actually taste it.>>

You at least know sugar is real and can verify the reasons for the sensation you get when you put it in your mouth. How do you distinguish between what believers experience and normal neurological sensations? How do you know that there are no other more rational explanations? The euphoria that Christians experience when they go to church, for example - the one they often attribute to being the presence of God - is the same euphoria that anyone experiences when they are surrounded by like-minded people.

<<God is there, if you embrace it.>>

So are fairies, by that logic.

That's an interesting concept in a thread about seniors...

"Believers experience the proof which is beyond the senses."

My father didn't believe he had ever been married and had six children, but that was a consequence of his dementia.

At the same time he was still a professing Christian! Dad was incapable of distinguishing his reality and could not have proven either claim.

The only differences between supernatural belief, self-delusion and mental disorders are degrees of harm done to oneself or to others. Yes, sometimes not only is there is no harm but their belief is undetectable... still doesn't make the belief an existent truth outside the person's imagination.

Politicians, it should be remembered, never think this about themselves.