Does religious bigotry bother you at all?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="the_plan_man"] That's not living in denial. Knowing there's possibly (meaning even .001% chance it might be true) that they might see their loved one again is not living in denial; that's living with hope. You "99%ers" should know about hoping, judging from your sig...you HOPED Obama would come to office and turn everything around...but look where that got you.thegerg

It is living in denial. Denial is a stage of coping marked by an individual believing what they WANT to believe regardless of evidence, i.e. DENYING the unpleasant situation they're being forced to deal with. It doesn't matter if there's a chance that it MIGHT be true. If someone learns they have cancer and the doctor gives them a 10% chance of beating it, and they decide that means that they absolutely WILL beat it then they are living in denial. I'm not even going to begin to go into how ridiculously asinine that last part is, there have been enough thread derailments around here lately.

Living in denial is not confronting an unpleasant situation, by convincing oneself it will not occur, e.g. one will never see a relative again so they convince themself that they WILL see that relative because of religion instead of dealing with the unpleasant reality of never seeing that relative again. If one is given a 10% chance of surviving it is not denial to hope they may be in that 10%, it is denial to think they WILL be in that 10% in order to avoid coping with the very real possibility of their own death, just as it is denial to think they WILL see their relatives again because they cannot cope with the very real possibility that they will never see them again.

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="theone86"]

It is living in denial. Denial is a stage of coping marked by an individual believing what they WANT to believe regardless of evidence, i.e. DENYING the unpleasant situation they're being forced to deal with. It doesn't matter if there's a chance that it MIGHT be true. If someone learns they have cancer and the doctor gives them a 10% chance of beating it, and they decide that means that they absolutely WILL beat it then they are living in denial. I'm not even going to begin to go into how ridiculously asinine that last part is, there have been enough thread derailments around here lately.

theone86

Living in denial is not confronting an unpleasant situation, by convincing oneself it will not occur, e.g. one will never see a relative again so they convince themself that they WILL see that relative because of religion instead of dealing with the unpleasant reality of never seeing that relative again. If one is given a 10% chance of surviving it is not denial to hope they may be in that 10%, it is denial to think they WILL be in that 10% in order to avoid coping with the very real possibility of their own death, just as it is denial to think they WILL see their relatives again because they cannot cope with the very real possibility that they will never see them again.

Religion in general bothers me..

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] No, living in denial of the fact that you have a 10% chance of living would be believing that you don't have a 10% chance of living. Believing that you will fall into that 10% is not denial. Holding a belief that is not supported by evidence (such as "there is a god", or "there is not a god") is not denial.thegerg

Living in denial is not confronting an unpleasant situation, by convincing oneself it will not occur, e.g. one will never see a relative again so they convince themself that they WILL see that relative because of religion instead of dealing with the unpleasant reality of never seeing that relative again. If one is given a 10% chance of surviving it is not denial to hope they may be in that 10%, it is denial to think they WILL be in that 10% in order to avoid coping with the very real possibility of their own death, just as it is denial to think they WILL see their relatives again because they cannot cope with the very real possibility that they will never see them again.

You're still not grasping what denial is. Denial is refusing to deal with an unpleasant situation by convincing oneself it will not occur, regardless of whether or not a remote possibility exists that it will not occur. One who believes they will not see their dead relative again is not in denial as the situation they believe will not occur is not an unpleasant one. They are not denying the possibility because they cannot cope with it, they are denying it because they find it unlikely. One who thinks they will see their dead relative again is denying it because they cannot cope with not seeing their relative again, which is denial. There is a difference between simply denying a possibility and living in denial.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] No, living in denial of the fact that you have a 10% chance of living would be believing that you don't have a 10% chance of living. Believing that you will fall into that 10% is not denial. Holding a belief that is not supported by evidence (such as "there is a god", or "there is not a god") is not denial.the_plan_man

Living in denial is not confronting an unpleasant situation, by convincing oneself it will not occur, e.g. one will never see a relative again so they convince themself that they WILL see that relative because of religion instead of dealing with the unpleasant reality of never seeing that relative again. If one is given a 10% chance of surviving it is not denial to hope they may be in that 10%, it is denial to think they WILL be in that 10% in order to avoid coping with the very real possibility of their own death, just as it is denial to think they WILL see their relatives again because they cannot cope with the very real possibility that they will never see them again.

No, hoping you will fall into that 10% is wishful thinking, thinking you will is denial. The power of wishful thinking does NOT do wonders, a determined attitude does. There are plenty of people who simply wish for the best and don't have it happen, the people with noticable results are the ones who ACCEPT unpleasant situations, deal with them, and resolve to make the most of their situation.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] We do not know what will happen after we die. There is no way to know if we will see a dead relative again. One who believes that we won't see dead relative is in denial as much as one who believes we will. thegerg

You're still not grasping what denial is. Denial is refusing to deal with an unpleasant situation by convincing oneself it will not occur, regardless of whether or not a remote possibility exists that it will not occur. One who believes they will not see their dead relative again is not in denial as the situation they believe will not occur is not an unpleasant one. They are not denying the possibility because they cannot cope with it, they are denying it because they find it unlikely. One who thinks they will see their dead relative again is denying it because they cannot cope with not seeing their relative again, which is denial. There is a difference between simply denying a possibility and living in denial.

Well, you are in denial, but not because of the clown mask thing. You haven't convinced yourself that an unpleasant situation will not occur, there is no rationale for thiking such a situation will occur. When you are convincing yourself that you will see a dead relative again you are doing so specifically because you cannot deal with the possibility of not seeing them again despite the real possibility that you will never see them again.

How you should deal with people who believe differently than you: Make fun of them/congratulate yourself for being more intelligent.

How you should not deal with people who believe differently than you: Learn about their beliefs, determine the differences and similarities between their philosophy and your own, and figure out how to get along.

I think it's annoying, atheist don't go around spreading their beliefs/lack of beliefs...Fightingfan

Hello. Welcome to OT. In the near future, you will probably see evidence contrary to the above opinion.

Even animals don't randomly bash each others skulls in.

toast_burner

You must not own cats.

Hey everybody!

Don't believe in God!

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="theone86"]

You're still not grasping what denial is. Denial is refusing to deal with an unpleasant situation by convincing oneself it will not occur, regardless of whether or not a remote possibility exists that it will not occur. One who believes they will not see their dead relative again is not in denial as the situation they believe will not occur is not an unpleasant one. They are not denying the possibility because they cannot cope with it, they are denying it because they find it unlikely. One who thinks they will see their dead relative again is denying it because they cannot cope with not seeing their relative again, which is denial. There is a difference between simply denying a possibility and living in denial.

Well, you are in denial, but not because of the clown mask thing. You haven't convinced yourself that an unpleasant situation will not occur, there is no rationale for thiking such a situation will occur. When you are convincing yourself that you will see a dead relative again you are doing so specifically because you cannot deal with the possibility of not seeing them again despite the real possibility that you will never see them again.

Hey everybody!

Don't believe in God!

THE_DRUGGIE

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] So I must be in denial if I do not believe that Bill Clinton will break into my apartment tonight and rape me while wearing a clown mask. I have convinced myself that such an unpleasant situation will not occur. Am I in denial?thegerg

Well, you are in denial, but not because of the clown mask thing. You haven't convinced yourself that an unpleasant situation will not occur, there is no rationale for thiking such a situation will occur. When you are convincing yourself that you will see a dead relative again you are doing so specifically because you cannot deal with the possibility of not seeing them again despite the real possibility that you will never see them again.

Then I guess the whole field of psychology is presumptive and ignorant. Denial is an examined and documented behavior that has loads of scientific evidence backing it up and is applicable to many different situations, loss of a relative being one of them. If there is a situation one cannot deal with denial is the refusal to believe that situation will occur. If they have convinced themselves they will see a dead relative again they are in denial, period.

Just because you believe a situation will not occur does not mean you have convinced youself it will not occur. There is no reational reason to think Bill Clinton is going to rape you in a clown mask, thinking that will happen is not a naturally occuring thought, at least not for a stable mind, ergo you do not have to convince youself that Bill Clinton will not rape you as you never would have thought that Bill Clinton WOULD rape you in the first place assuming you're rational and stable. There is a rational reason to think you will never see a dead relative again, even if we acknowledge the possibility that you might see them again.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Hey everybody!

Don't believe in God!

sonic__323

Let's spread our beliefs to everyone!

Let's spread our beliefs to everyone!

THE_DRUGGIE

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]I think it's annoying, atheist don't go around spreading their beliefs/lack of beliefs...I

Hello. Welcome to OT. In the near future, you will probably see evidence contrary to the above opinion.

Look, that didn't take long:

Hey everybody!

Don't believe in God!

THE_DRUGGIE

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Let's spread our beliefs to everyone!

sonic__323

To the Sciencemobile!

Then I guess the whole field of psychology is presumptive and ignorant. Denial is an examined and documented behavior that has loads of scientific evidence backing it up and is applicable to many different situations, loss of a relative being one of them. If there is a situation one cannot deal with denial is the refusal to believe that situation will occur. If they have convinced themselves they will see a dead relative again they are in denial, period.

theone86

Unless people cope with it via religion. In which case the field of psychology doesn't consider it denial.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] So I must be in denial if I do not believe that Bill Clinton will break into my apartment tonight and rape me while wearing a clown mask. I have convinced myself that such an unpleasant situation will not occur. Am I in denial?the_plan_man

Well, you are in denial, but not because of the clown mask thing. You haven't convinced yourself that an unpleasant situation will not occur, there is no rationale for thiking such a situation will occur. When you are convincing yourself that you will see a dead relative again you are doing so specifically because you cannot deal with the possibility of not seeing them again despite the real possibility that you will never see them again.

There is no rationale for being certain of the uncertain. This is what I am saying, if you are certain that you will see a dead relative because the possibility exists that you might see them then you are being irrational and you are in denial. Biblical proof has nothing to do with it, if I tell you tomorrow that I am going to grant you superhuman strength in twenty years do you think it's rational to believe me? I haven't been disproven, so according to your logic it is rational. The Bible is not certain, it holds the possibility of error, ergo the possibility that it is wrong is still REAL, ergo the possibility that you will never see your relative again is still REAL, ergo denying that possibility is still living in denial.

The word bigot is one that irritates me in generalOverlord93

It does seem to be overused. It seems to be a synonym for "people who don't agree with me" much of the time.

[QUOTE="sonic__323"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Let's spread our beliefs to everyone!

THE_DRUGGIE

To the Sciencemobile!

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Well, you are in denial, but not because of the clown mask thing. You haven't convinced yourself that an unpleasant situation will not occur, there is no rationale for thiking such a situation will occur. When you are convincing yourself that you will see a dead relative again you are doing so specifically because you cannot deal with the possibility of not seeing them again despite the real possibility that you will never see them again.

Then I guess the whole field of psychology is presumptive and ignorant. Denial is an examined and documented behavior that has loads of scientific evidence backing it up and is applicable to many different situations, loss of a relative being one of them. If there is a situation one cannot deal with denial is the refusal to believe that situation will occur. If they have convinced themselves they will see a dead relative again they are in denial, period.

Just because you believe a situation will not occur does not mean you have convinced youself it will not occur. There is no reational reason to think Bill Clinton is going to rape you in a clown mask, thinking that will happen is not a naturally occuring thought, at least not for a stable mind, ergo you do not have to convince youself that Bill Clinton will not rape you as you never would have thought that Bill Clinton WOULD rape you in the first place assuming you're rational and stable. There is a rational reason to think you will never see a dead relative again, even if we acknowledge the possibility that you might see them again.

[QUOTE="the_plan_man"]But there is with religion. Reading the Bible is rationale enough for most people to KNOW they will see their dead relative again...and, since the book as a whole has not been disproven, they have good reason to believe they will see them again.theone86

There is no rationale for being certain of the uncertain. This is what I am saying, if you are certain that you will see a dead relative because the possibility exists that you might see them then you are being irrational and you are in denial. Biblical proof has nothing to do with it, if I tell you tomorrow that I am going to grant you superhuman strength in twenty years do you think it's rational to believe me? I haven't been disproven, so according to your logic it is rational. The Bible is not certain, it holds the possibility of error, ergo the possibility that it is wrong is still REAL, ergo the possibility that you will never see your relative again is still REAL, ergo denying that possibility is still living in denial.

Let's cut out that part about the Bible not being disproven. A person believes in the afterlife. They always have. A relative dies. They believe they will see this person again. They are living in denial, or not?

EDIT: Though I guess this question is moot, since you already established that the field of psychology doesn't apply denial to religious beliefs.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Then I guess the whole field of psychology is presumptive and ignorant. Denial is an examined and documented behavior that has loads of scientific evidence backing it up and is applicable to many different situations, loss of a relative being one of them. If there is a situation one cannot deal with denial is the refusal to believe that situation will occur. If they have convinced themselves they will see a dead relative again they are in denial, period.

Palantas

Unless people cope with it via religion. In which case the field of psychology doesn't consider it denial.

Well, that's kinda what I was saying in my first post. If I go to a psychologist and tell them that I believe that if an individual does x in life then their dead relatives will be recomposed out of ambient matter and they will be able to talk to them, but that they will be invisible to everyone else and that if anyone who sees their dead relatives ever confirms this they will be unable to see their dead relatives then a psychologist would say I am in denial. However, if supernatural arguments of the same vein belong to a set of accepted religious beliefs then it suddenly isn't denial anymore. The distinction is purely arbitrary.

As for coping, I wouldn't call it coping. People who cope with the loss of their relatives absent religion can be religious and can hope to see their relatives again. However, people who use religious explanations to convince themselves of the certainty of seeing their relatives again are specifically avoiding coping.

The distinction is purely arbitrary.

theone86

Then why is the distinction made?

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Then I guess the whole field of psychology is presumptive and ignorant. Denial is an examined and documented behavior that has loads of scientific evidence backing it up and is applicable to many different situations, loss of a relative being one of them. If there is a situation one cannot deal with denial is the refusal to believe that situation will occur. If they have convinced themselves they will see a dead relative again they are in denial, period.

theone86

Unless people cope with it via religion. In which case the field of psychology doesn't consider it denial.

Well, that's kinda what I was saying in my first post. If I go to a psychologist and tell them that I believe that if an individual does x in life then their dead relatives will be recomposed out of ambient matter and they will be able to talk to them, but that they will be invisible to everyone else and that if anyone who sees their dead relatives ever confirms this they will be unable to see their dead relatives then a psychologist would say I am in denial. However, if supernatural arguments of the same vein belong to a set of accepted religious beliefs then it suddenly isn't denial anymore. The distinction is purely arbitrary.

As for coping, I wouldn't call it coping. People who cope with the loss of their relatives absent religion can be religious and can hope to see their relatives again. However, people who use religious explanations to convince themselves of the certainty of seeing their relatives again are specifically avoiding coping.

How you should deal with people who believe differently than you: Make fun of them/congratulate yourself for being more intelligent.

How you should not deal with people who believe differently than you: Learn about their beliefs, determine the differences and similarities between their philosophy and your own, and figure out how to get along.

Palantas

[QUOTE="I"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

Hello. Welcome to OT. In the near future, you will probably see evidence contrary to the above opinion.

Palantas

Look, that didn't take long:

Hey everybody!

Don't believe in God!

THE_DRUGGIE

Have you heard the non-news about nothing, my good man?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] How do you know what reasoning people use to convince themselves that they will see a dead relative again? That's quite presumptive and ignorant of you. Moving on, you seem to be confused. "You haven't convinced yourself that an unpleasant situation will not occur," more ignorant presumptions. I have, in fact, convinced myself that the previously mentioned situation will not occur. I already told you that. Why do you doubt what I am telling you?the_plan_man

Then I guess the whole field of psychology is presumptive and ignorant. Denial is an examined and documented behavior that has loads of scientific evidence backing it up and is applicable to many different situations, loss of a relative being one of them. If there is a situation one cannot deal with denial is the refusal to believe that situation will occur. If they have convinced themselves they will see a dead relative again they are in denial, period.

Just because you believe a situation will not occur does not mean you have convinced youself it will not occur. There is no reational reason to think Bill Clinton is going to rape you in a clown mask, thinking that will happen is not a naturally occuring thought, at least not for a stable mind, ergo you do not have to convince youself that Bill Clinton will not rape you as you never would have thought that Bill Clinton WOULD rape you in the first place assuming you're rational and stable. There is a rational reason to think you will never see a dead relative again, even if we acknowledge the possibility that you might see them again.

For one, alright, that's what I'm saying. Two, being in denial does not make one crazy. As to whether having faith in the fact (calling it a fact, BTW, conflicts with your previous statement about them not knowing) constitutes denial, it's really a matter of why. If they can cope with the possibility of never seeing their relatives again then their faith does not mean they are in denial, if they cannot cope with it then they are in a state of denial.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

The distinction is purely arbitrary.

Palantas

Then why is the distinction made?

I don't know.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="the_plan_man"]But there is with religion. Reading the Bible is rationale enough for most people to KNOW they will see their dead relative again...and, since the book as a whole has not been disproven, they have good reason to believe they will see them again.Palantas

There is no rationale for being certain of the uncertain. This is what I am saying, if you are certain that you will see a dead relative because the possibility exists that you might see them then you are being irrational and you are in denial. Biblical proof has nothing to do with it, if I tell you tomorrow that I am going to grant you superhuman strength in twenty years do you think it's rational to believe me? I haven't been disproven, so according to your logic it is rational. The Bible is not certain, it holds the possibility of error, ergo the possibility that it is wrong is still REAL, ergo the possibility that you will never see your relative again is still REAL, ergo denying that possibility is still living in denial.

Let's cut out that part about the Bible not being disproven. A person believes in the afterlife. They always have. A relative dies. They believe they will see this person again. They are living in denial, or not?

EDIT: Though I guess this question is moot, since you already established that the field of psychology doesn't apply denial to religious beliefs.

Well, most psychologists say it doesn't, I'm saying that's an arbitrary distinction. As to the first part, I'd be curious to see how many people would still be religious if they could all cope with death and loss. Being religious does not necessarily make one in denial, but I think there are a lot of religious people who use their beliefs to keep themselves in denial. The discussion of how widespread this might be is beside the point, the way this got started is that TC said religion is a way to cope with death and loss and I said if that's the case whoever's using religion to cope is in denial, and I stand by that. I don't see coping with death as a legitimate justification of religion. If someone is believing in religion just because they can't cope with death then they are in denial.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

Then I guess the whole field of psychology is presumptive and ignorant. Denial is an examined and documented behavior that has loads of scientific evidence backing it up and is applicable to many different situations, loss of a relative being one of them. If there is a situation one cannot deal with denial is the refusal to believe that situation will occur. If they have convinced themselves they will see a dead relative again they are in denial, period.thegerg

Just because you believe a situation will not occur does not mean you have convinced youself it will not occur. There is no reational reason to think Bill Clinton is going to rape you in a clown mask, thinking that will happen is not a naturally occuring thought, at least not for a stable mind, ergo you do not have to convince youself that Bill Clinton will not rape you as you never would have thought that Bill Clinton WOULD rape you in the first place assuming you're rational and stable. There is a rational reason to think you will never see a dead relative again, even if we acknowledge the possibility that you might see them again.theone86

I need not convince myself that I will not be raped by a former president anymore than one need convince themselves they will see or will not see a dead relative again. No one needs to convince themselves of anything.

I am not, you are strawmanning me. I never said that anyone who is religious is in denial, that's something you're falsely attributing to me. The TC also said that a justification for religion was that people use it to cope, so I am speaking specifically to the use of religion to cope with loss and not with religion in general.

I don't need to convince myself that gravity exists, I know it does. You don't need to convince yourself that Bill Clinton will not rape you, you know it is highly unlikely and irrational. If you do need to convince yourself that Bill Clinton will not rape you then you have deeper psychological problems.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

"the whole field of psychology" isn't what is assuming to know the reasoning why people believe what they do, you are. [QUOTE="theone86"]Just because you believe a situation will not occur does not mean you have convinced youself it will not occur. There is no reational reason to think Bill Clinton is going to rape you in a clown mask, thinking that will happen is not a naturally occuring thought, at least not for a stable mind, ergo you do not have to convince youself that Bill Clinton will not rape you as you never would have thought that Bill Clinton WOULD rape you in the first place assuming you're rational and stable. There is a rational reason to think you will never see a dead relative again, even if we acknowledge the possibility that you might see them again.theone86

I need not convince myself that I will not be raped by a former president anymore than one need convince themselves they will see or will not see a dead relative again. No one needs to convince themselves of anything.

I am not, you are strawmanning me. I never said that anyone who is religious is in denial, that's something you're falsely attributing to me. The TC also said that a justification for religion was that people use it to cope, so I am speaking specifically to the use of religion to cope with loss and not with religion in general.

I don't need to convince myself that gravity exists, I know it does. You don't need to convince yourself that Bill Clinton will not rape you, you know it is highly unlikely and irrational. If you do need to convince yourself that Bill Clinton will not rape you then you have deeper psychological problems.

For the record, I don't believe there is a god. I just find it silly how those with one irrational and unprovable belief ("there is no god") seem to feel superior to those with another irrational and unprovable belief ("there is a god").thegerg

You don't understand reason and proof.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] I HAVE, indeed, convinced myself that Bill Clinton will not be raping me wearing a clown mask. It was quite easy to convince myself of that. Why do you continue to doubt what I am telling you?

I need not convince myself that I will not be raped by a former president anymore than one need convince themselves they will see or will not see a dead relative again. No one needs to convince themselves of anything.

the_plan_man

I am not, you are strawmanning me. I never said that anyone who is religious is in denial, that's something you're falsely attributing to me. The TC also said that a justification for religion was that people use it to cope, so I am speaking specifically to the use of religion to cope with loss and not with religion in general.

I don't need to convince myself that gravity exists, I know it does. You don't need to convince yourself that Bill Clinton will not rape you, you know it is highly unlikely and irrational. If you do need to convince yourself that Bill Clinton will not rape you then you have deeper psychological problems.

Well that's part of what I'm saying. I'm not saying you can't believe you'll see dead relatives again, I'm saying that believing you'll see them is not coping with the situation.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] I HAVE, indeed, convinced myself that Bill Clinton will not be raping me wearing a clown mask. It was quite easy to convince myself of that. Why do you continue to doubt what I am telling you?

I need not convince myself that I will not be raped by a former president anymore than one need convince themselves they will see or will not see a dead relative again. No one needs to convince themselves of anything.

thegerg

I am not, you are strawmanning me. I never said that anyone who is religious is in denial, that's something you're falsely attributing to me. The TC also said that a justification for religion was that people use it to cope, so I am speaking specifically to the use of religion to cope with loss and not with religion in general.

I don't need to convince myself that gravity exists, I know it does. You don't need to convince yourself that Bill Clinton will not rape you, you know it is highly unlikely and irrational. If you do need to convince yourself that Bill Clinton will not rape you then you have deeper psychological problems.

If you are convincing yourself you will see a relative again you are in denial, denial is avoiding dealing with an unpleasant situation because you cannot cope with it, I am not making assumptions about anything. Thank you, try again.

And Jesus ****ing Christ, yes people DO need to convince themselves of some things. People don't need to be convinced of things that are logical, rational, or commonly known. People DO need to convince themselves of things that are not, such as the idea that they WILL see their dead relatives again.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]For the record, I don't believe there is a god. I just find it silly how those with one irrational and unprovable belief ("there is no god") seem to feel superior to those with another irrational and unprovable belief ("there is a god").thegerg

You don't understand reason and proof.

You're saying that a belief that there is no god is irrational, therefore you do not understand reason.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]I am not "strawmanning" Anyone, you're the one that posted "when you are convincing yourself that you will see a dead relative again you are doing so specifically because you cannot deal with the possibility of not seeing them again", as if you know why those who convince themselves they will see a dead relative again are doing so. I never said that you said that anyone who is religious in is denial...(speaking of a straw man). Again, no one NEEDS to convince themselves of anything (whether that thing is gravity, ex-president rape, or an afterlife).thegerg

If you are convincing yourself you will see a relative again you are in denial, denial is avoiding dealing with an unpleasant situation because you cannot cope with it, I am not making assumptions about anything. Thank you, try again.

No I'm not, that's the nature of denial.