The overall point that is clear is that all people have feelings, emotions and traditions.

These behaviors are comforting and helpful, especially in time of despair and that should be respected.

This includes atheists and those with no religious beliefs, but who hold to their own ethical and moral standards.

One week after the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist church shooting a very good friend of mine and a peace officer I worked with for many years was murdered in North Carolina on his way to military training.

http://www.sunherald.com/pageone/story/723297.html

On my oath, I will not stop doing what I know is the right thing to do...what many do even in very despairing times.

We will abide by our code to protect, serve and care for others for the greater good of our human family, no matter what.

I can't stop crying because I miss my friend.

But I will stand among many who remember his good will...and we will endure.

Steve Schlicht

PS Thank you for your views Thomas and everyone.

In my view, the noted observation that there is no absolute perfection is actually another very well reasoned example that there is no evidence for the existence of God(s)ess(es).

We are all we have and where there is breath and a loving heart...there is always hope.

Siderealex and Steve S:

Thanks for your comments. Steve Schilcht and I just agreed that these issues are worthy of investigation and it seems from your comment, Siderealex -

"Religion and the Gods it has created are entirely human creations"

- that you have completed the investigation!

Steve S asserts that love is love and is not conditional. That does not mean that forgiveness is not conditional (on, in the teaching of Jesus, repentance and faith).

Steve S also admits to the the possibility that Jesus lived. I think that serious discussion on that subject has to start from agreement that He did live (even if you won't grant the capital H).

My question is this: if you aren't satisfied with the arguments in favour of this or that miracle ('supernatural claims'), what would it take to convince you that the God Jesus exists, cares for you, and has the power to intervene in your life?

Much grace,
StephenS2S

Religion and the Gods it has created are entirely human creations. Based in fear, fear of what people don't know, of death, of all kinds of things. I have no reason to adopt inane wish-thinking, and needless prejudices as some sad coping mechanism against such fears. History and the modern world stand as a testament that religion does not truly desire free thought and the realities of scientific inquiry.

Lying to ourselves is hardly a good answer to our problems. And that is what religion and belief in the supernatural is. Lying to ourselves and others.

As I see I didn't have an accidental post at 3:17 PM, sorry about that.

One thing that I would like to add, sometimes we think of God as someone or something that we can put into a box using our mental capacity, so to speak.

The God that I speak of made everything and everybody out of absolutely nothing and we try to contain Him.

God is as I said a Being of Pure Love and I thank God for that and I stake absolutely everything on God's Plan being for ALL, if His Plan is not for ALL then He is not much of a God and His Plan isn't worth diddly.

Oh, by the way, I probably will not make it down to the Gulf Coast but if I do I will try to look you up and thank you for the invite.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

STEVE SCHLICHT

My post at 3:17 PM was accidentally sent, I was just started my post and here it is.

You wrote, "It is our thermonuclear rarity and brevity that make us so valuable and not the puppets on a string who are a part of some pre-determined plan of an omniscient being beyond the child's shoebox of space and time."

I don't know what you mean by "our thermonuclear rarity" but I suppose the brevity part is the short time that we are physically alive on this planet.

On previous posts of mine, I have said that we aren't puppets on a string, just because God is Omniscient does not take away from our free will and the fact that God has a Plan even for those that will never be sorry in this life for the wrongs that they do in this life, to be with Him in His Kingdom, doesn't make God the puppeteer or the cop in the sky looking for the least wrong thing we do to jump on us but makes what Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" seem not only the right thing to do but considering that God knows how to clean up those that refuse to be cleaned up very sensible.

This is not to say that we are not to bring justice to people on this earth because that would be foolish and as most would acknowledge without human justice being meted out on this planet there would probably be just utter chaos since man, whether anyone admits it or not, has a fallen nature and for those that don't admit it, it sure seems to be true, does it not?

Have you met a perfect person who is perfect all of the time in thought, word and deed?

Justice and revenge are two different things.

It seems as if some people want Divine Mercy for themselves and Divine Justice for others whereas Divine Justice and Divine Mercy go hand in hand.

Sometimes when someone is brought to justice on this planet it is the best thing that could have ever happened to them.

God works thru people all of the time whether we know it or not.

This "child's shoebox of space and time", what do you mean by that?

One thing to think about, Jesus asked us to be child-like, there is a world of difference between being childish and child-like, don't you think so?

I am running short on time, I may send some more later.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

StephenS2S,

Again, love is love and is not conditional upon belief in bloody human sacrifice in my view.

It is our thermonuclear rarity and brevity that make us so valuable and not the puppets on a string who are a part of some pre-determined plan of an omniscient being beyond the child's shoebox of space and time.

In my view, perhaps a historical person named Jesus existed, but resurrection and divinity are supernatural claims and are simply not provable or disprovable because they are set in the basic genre of magic and physically unquantifiable in real terms.

All cultural religious claims, myths and imaginary beings are framed in such magical and supernatural terms as well.

This does not make any of them real or true, yet I'm sure you are not agnostic to the existence of other purported supernatural beings.

The Christian mythos is, in my opinion, on par with all the rest and where claims try to overlap into the objectively testable universe it has as much evidence as any other...namely, none at all.

They are all definitely worth the investigation!

On that issue we agree and it is always good to find common ground.

Take care, stay safe, be good.

Steve Schlicht

PS Anonymous, I am an atheist and have not always agreed with other atheists in this thread and have defended Christians with whom I have found some agreement.

How is this significant to the ongoing discussions exactly?

Steve:

Thanks for your comments. You said,

"In short, religious claims don't get a free pass no matter how eloquent the petitioner is about his or her subjective experiences."

Good point. I hold to the divinity of Jesus and the ramifications of that - including His death and resurrection, His command to repent and believe, His invitation, "Come follow Me", and so on.

That claim will get not get a free pass here, but it will stand up to scrutiny. And it is worth the investigation.

Much grace,
StephenS2S

Arminius, I have wondered about your claim that you are a Christian. In all your posts you have not agreed with any Christian and you go out of your way to defend atheists, pagans and Muslims.

There is no need to quote stats in regard to atheism. In time when countries are knee deep in suffering humanity, when clean water is a thing only in the past, when wild climate changes have brought disaster to parts of the world, when our country is not first but third rate, then you can assess the message of the church to produce millions of children that no one wants or can care for.

Here is my perspective on the issue of human knowledge and how it would apply to religious claims.

While it is technically accurate that we humans can't say that we know in absolute terms that there are no fairies, magic elves, leprechauns, Zeus, Zoroaster, Thor, Odin, the Rainbow Bridge, God, the divinity of Jesus, etc., it is still reasonable to do so without evidence.

I am not agnostic about any of those claims equally.

What we can do is examine objective empirical evidence when claims are made that such beings interact with the natural universe and say that we don't believe in them beyond a reasonable doubt on the grounds that they fail the test of evidence that we use in other aspects of our lives (science, medicine, courts, driving to work, etc).

Once claims are made that are framed in such a way that no application of analysis we use on a daily basis is relevant then all bets are off and any imaginable claim can be made without disproof.

In short, religious claims don't get a free pass no matter how eloquent the petitioner is about his or her subjective experiences.

Religion must stand or fall on the same foundation of critical analysis we would apply to any other claim about life, the universe and everything.

This is a reasonable approach and has provided a great deal of insight to me in my life, travels and study. I am aware that some may disagree and wouldn't have it any other way. Our lives are unique and no one can ever think exactly the same as anyone else.

That's another facet of the beauty of the human mind.

Steve

Thomas,

L Frank Baum was a wonderful writer and I enjoyed much of his insight when I was studying the Theosophical Society.

My view is that the universe is far too wondrous and expansive and full of potential that any attempts to encapsulate it into a deification would be a disservice to our human experience of it.

I do wholeheartedly understand your perspective and am better for having met you.

If you are ever down here along the MS Gulf Coast please give me a call and we'll visit.

Steve

CRAIG

You wrote, "The theist's world-view is based on the existance of a deity. That belief is really more like a truth...an undeniable, incontrovertable truth. Everything else is built on the foundation of this truth."

Most of my life I believed in God so I suppose that you would call me a theist.

I would venture a guess that most people that believe in God, do just that believe in God.

It doesn't matter to me if anyone believes me or not but I have met God, Who Is a Trinity and Is a Being of Pure Love.

There are some that have had experiences that they, also, may know that God is real and how God revealed Himself to them is really none of my business that is between God and that person if they wish to speak about it that is good but how God works in other's life is up to God.

I try to be very specific in using words such as knowing and believing because they do not mean the same thing. Even believing fervently in God is just that believing not knowing.

There are some things that I know and there are other things that I believe and there is a difference between the two words.

Before I met God there is no way that I could have said that I know God is real and be telling the truth.

There is really no way that someone can honestly say that they know there is no God but they can honestly say that they believe that there is no God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

APRIL

You wrote, "I sometimes yearn to believe in a god so that I could "hand over the reigns" but it just doesn't work for me."

I, basically, believed in God most of my life but after going thru some "experiences" I, now, know that God is real.

As far as "handing over the reigns", at least the way I think that you might mean it, that is not the way that it is unfolding in my life. I know that I have a very specific "job" to do but I believe that I do not have to do it alone but I still have to do it.

Some people seem to think that being a "Christian" means that God has done everything whereas Jesus, Who is God-Incarnate, told us that there is work to be done and as far as I am concerned He was serious and meant it.

He also said "Take My yoke upon you" in case you don't know what a yoke is because it wasn't too long ago, I did not know, a yoke is that contraption that hooks two animals together so that they can work as one.

So what He meant by "Take My yoke" is that He will work with us but we are to work as one.

He also said that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us into All Truth, some people seem to think this means stuff like scientific truths of how nature and the universe is put together but what it means is what ultimately is important in our relationships with each other and with God but we still have to make a conscious decision on what we actually do.

What I am also trying to say is that there will not be some kind of "divine blueprint" falling into your heart to follow. It is more like an unfolding. I see that I wrote heart when I meant to write head but I decided to keep it that way because sometimes we lose sight of the fact that we have both a heart and a head and we should use both.

I try to write as clearly and simply as I can but I am not sure if it comes across to other people that way, I hope so.

If you have any questions or comments about this please ask.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

STEVE SCHLICHT

You asked, "PS Are you in anyway related to L. Frank Baum?

Not that I know of, at least in the way that you are asking it.

Take care, be ready and I again thank you for replying not only to my posts but also to other people's posts.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

1) It is fantastic that Steve Schlicht has been posting on here. I feverently wish more of the columnists here were able or willing to do so!

2) Beowulfthepolitician said: "...the faith required to believe in statistical improbabilities of random self-coalescence of the universe is far greater than I can muster. It is more mathematically probable that the universe had an intelligent designer at it's helm."

This statement (in my mind) shows one of the biggest barriers to mutual understanding between theists and atheists (besides a lack of respect for differing opinions, that is): The theist's world-view is based on the existance of a deity. That belief is really more like a truth...an undeniable, incontrovertable truth. Everything else is built on the foundation of this truth.

An atheist's world view is obviously different. Atheists believe there is/are no deity(ies). Again, this goes beyond a mere belief...it is a truth, undeniable and incontrovertable.

Beowulf states that it is mathematically more probable that an intelligent designer created the universe than for the universe to have "self-coalesced". As an atheist, though, this statement is altogether false as it is impossible, not merely improbable, that an intelligent designer created the universe. It is altogether false (in my view) because there is not now, nor has there ever been an intelligent designer. This is a truth for me, not a belief.

If I were a theist, though, I would already know (not just a belief, but a truth) that a deity exists. Obviously now I can entertain the notion that this deity created the universe...but only because I already know the deity exists.

The point is, both atheists and theists are bound by their personal truths (either the belief in a deity or the belief in the absence of a deity). The problem arises when theists and atheists alike cannot acknowledge that the fundamental "truth" of their lives do not apply to anyone other than themselves.

There is no proof of a deity. There is no proof of the absence of a deity. There is no middle ground. No compromise. No way to work around it.

There are, hopefully though, more people like Steve Schlicht and Beowulfthepolitician who acknowledge this and thus can have respectful, thoughtful discussions that aim to describe their own truths, rather than trying to disprove the truths of others.

Yes! One Yiddishy Brain is worth a thousand goyim Tuchis's!

Same as saying one Atheists Brain, is worth a 1000 Religious buts!

Hi April,

To be clear, my offering is to address the definition of atheism and the connectivity to such a position based on a lack of objective empirical evidence for the existences of God(s)ess(es).

That said, I was hoping to make it clear that that is only one facet of the personality who has no belief in such beings. To be honest there is only so much of an idea that can be piled into a 500 word limitation and I apologize for not getting to that aspect of the discussion.

That Mr. Colson painted with so broad a brush after the Pew Survey was the catalyst for me to contact Mr. Waters in order to suggest another view is available. He was generous to offer me this opportunity, which is very much appreciated.

You are right, many atheists become so for a wide variety of reasons and that is what I was trying to convey here.

There is the problem of evil, resistance to rote and ritual and fashion, subjective treatment by other theists, the beauty of the natural sunrise and depth of the night sky in all the wonder and awe, personal feelings, etc.

I’m glad I read your post because I learned something from it and will try harder to better incorporate that into how I address these issues in the future.

Take care and thank you.

Steve

Interesting. I am an atheist because it's the only thing that ever felt right. I sometimes yearn to believe in a god so that I could "hand over the reigns" but it just doesn't work for me. Using the "no proof means no god" approach also doesn't work for me. That's a game to me that feels silly to play.

Steve Schlicht,

I really appreciate your hugely decent reply to Thomas Baum. I am a believer, but not in Baum's camp exactly. I do have a tremendous respect for him, and really admire your appreciation of his opinions, and your polite disagreements.

Also, I respect your posting in your own blog. That is all too rare here.

Arminius

That was incredibly eloquent and well thought out. It makes me proud to be an Atheist and I hope that for some of the other readers, it goes toward dispelling the stereotypes of an Atheist.

Thanks so much for your post Thomas.

For me, love is love...and it is not conditional upon belief in supernatural beings, sacred texts or representative authority figures that assign themselves as divine conduits that could ever hope to know what an invisible complex being beyond space and time has in mind.

We are human beings, loving and articulate and creative. The simplicity of that fact should not be lost on anyone.

No God(s)ess(es) required.

Y'all have a wonderful evening and take good care!

Steve

PS Are you in anyway related to L. Frank Baum?

STEVE SCHLICHT

Thank you very much for responding to my post.

I would like to make a comment about something in it, "The point of my "guest voices" submission here is that far too often, far too many religious personalities objectify others, they speak as if for them and remove the understanding that we are real people."

This happens all over the belief-nonbelief spectrum, it seems to be part of human nature to group the "other" together rather than seeing the "other" as a bunch of "us's" rather than one "them".

This could be referred to as the "us vs them" syndrome which has been around for quite awhile and does not seem to be in any rush to be leaving anytime soon. This syndrome has been, and will continue to be, exploited.

Also that the "us's" are all individually unique people and that all of us are in this together whether we like it or not.

Also you wrote, "My opinion is that even if any of the God(s)ess(es) existed their intents and motivations would be so far beyond human comprehension as to make them irrelevant to our condition. No person could be empowered to speak on their behalf with any sort of actual authority that they didn't simply give to themselves.", this is your opinion and that is fine.

God is a "Personable God", as in He wishes to have a Personable Relationship with us. Before I met God, I believed in God but I did not know that He Was and Is Real.

If God wasn't, we wouldn't be and neither would anything else.

God's intents and motivations are exactly what is relevant to "our condition".

I have said on here and other places that God Is a Being of Pure Love and He Is, I would say that that is beyone human comprehension, it is definitely beyond my comprehension but nevertheless by God the Father coming into my heart, I found out that it is a LITERAL TRUTH.

There is no way that I could have come to this conclusion without Divine intervention.

Also, I did not choose to be a messenger of God, He chose me and I have said YES.

Something to think about: There is a huge difference between the two following statements; "God is a Loving God" and "God is Love", one of the statements says that Love is an attribute of God and the other says that Love is His Very Being.

I had no idea that the statement "God Is Love" was and is LITERAL until I met God.

I don't know but I would imagine that you might not be able to comprehend, Love being a Being, just as I could not comprehend it, am I correct?

I am not saying that you believe it, I am just asking if, Love being an Actual Being, is within your comprehension?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Very good, BeowulfthePolitician, though we are getting well off the thread topic, let us examine the basic claim of the person of Jesus and see if we can find some common ground.

To save you some time, I am not one to discount a historical person that may have eventually become one of the many mythic heroes as is common among world cultures both written and oral.

As for the divinity of Jesus, objective evidence is lacking along with consistency of claim. We can just as well prove the existence of Siddartha Guatama, but not the Buddha, Dharma wheel or the Hindu pantheon or any state of Nirvana.

Getting back to foundational Christianity, if it is accepted that humans are flawed with sin based upon the crime of the first two original humans who were beguiled by a talking serpent into disobeying the deity, then one would have to examine how such a divine authority would chose to approach this problem.

Could the divine authority simply unconditionally forgive the crime of disobedience and heal the first humans now scourged with the disease of sin, along with all of their potential generations of infants who had nothing to do with the initial incident?

That would be a reasonable choice after all.

Should the divine authority send himself to earth through a virgin human female with the express plan to have himself tortured and sacrificed to atone for the crimes of others and then travel back to paradise to live as a King?

Well, what exactly is being sacrificed then?

Furthermore, if the assertion is that this deity has the power of omniscience and benevolence and can intervene in human affairs, it should be consistent with care, goodness and unconditional forgiveness.

Now, to me, human blood sacrifice is immoral and not a reasonable plan. You may disagree.

It is even more immoral if the one being killed is not even the one responsible for the ailment to begin with.

As a law enforcement officer well versed in our secular legal practices, it is abhorrent to kill someone for the crimes of another. That would be a grave error, terribly so if intentional.

We would not accept this as a reasonable practice in any court of law as it is not the basis of a civil, ethical society.

That said, the Christian claim is that this not only occurred but that one must believe in it in order to be rewarded in the afterlife.

How does one hope to prove that to be the case?

It certainly is not consistent with any actual evidence available.

That one is to be eternally tortured in a lake of fire for not believing in it is simply hateful and, therefore, soundly defeats the notion that the deity is benevolent.

You say that you believe in claims due to the existence of holy books ascribed to these deities, but they exist in many cultures in the forms of scrolls, texts and art.

Given this highly speculative standard you have I’m not sure how you can disprove any of the God(s)ess(es) that any other religious adherent asserts exists on the same grounds.

In sum, there is no objective proof for the Christian claim. Such a belief is based on faith and not evidence.

Once the Christian texts and religious claims attempt to assert data into the natural world they are open to critical examination.

When these claims are examined closer, the religious adherent must always return to subjective and unfalsfiable supernatural petition to believe them on faith alone.

Thanks for your insight and for the great email.

I do look forward to even more exchanges.

Steve

"Nice to meet you, sir, and can you please tell your fellow atheists that they should chill out on the anti-theism?"

Fuji,

I think you have mistaken anti-theism with anti-theocracy. There is a big difference!

Can you please tell your fellow theists that they should chill out on the theocracy and to please stop trying to use the power of government to push their theism on everybody else? Then and only then will we have a truce. Otherwise, it's game on!

Fuji,

Very nice to meet you as well.

Which atheists have you had an issue with regarding anti-theism?

Have you directed your feelings to them in order to reach some common ground?

My view is that people are people and can be subject to all sorts of emotional expressions that lead to varied responses.

The point of my submission here, Fuji, is that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God(s)ess(es) due to a distinct lack of evidence for their existence.

If you have an issue with someone being anti-anything you must take it up with them while trying not paint with a broad brush.

I hope that is a sensible approach for you.

Take care and please feel free to email me with any other concerns or interests you may have.

Steve

ANGELA

I look past heaven and hell and death to the new heavens and the new earth, that is the Kingdom.

You wrote, " In addition, scripture states: even our good works are tainted due to wrong motives and wrong desires.".

If you read my post, one of the things that I said and have said many times before is: "It is important WHAT you do and WHY you do it and WHAT you know", something to think about, if someone believes that there is nothing after this life and if they also believe that there is no judgement, then it seems to me that they might not have an ulterior motive and if they don't, does it not appear that they are doing the right thing for the right reason?

Only God can see the motives of the heart but it is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reason, is it not?

You also wrote, " Also, you continually beat down other Christians as if we don't believe what others believe, you tend to speak as though they are unloving...some on this post, whether, "true christian or not" are very ugly as far as their heart."

No, I do not "continually beat down other Christians" what I so plainly say is that if someone calls themself a "Christian" then they should at least attempt to be one. If you look in the bible, it says the same thing, does it not?

I have to agree that some of what spews out of the mouths of some people calling themselves "Christians" is vile and unloving and full of hatred, there is more to being a "Christian" then calling oneself a "Christian" and that is also very much spoken about in the bible, is it not?

I stake absolutely everything on God's Plan being for ALL, did not Jesus die for us sinners and then extend the invitation to "Come follow Me" as in dying for others?

Jesus called us to be "Good Friday" people, did He not?

Jesus said, "There is work to be done", did He not?

Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you", did He not?

This means that the work that He has for us, we do not have to do it alone, He is there with us and also the Holy Spirit is there to guide us.

God is a Being of Pure Love, a consuming FIRE OF PURE LOVE and God's Love will burn all of the crud, so to speak, away. We can asked to be cleaned up or we will be cleaned up.

I, for one, do not underestimate God's Ability to bring His Plan for the Salvation of ALL Humanity to fruition.

I am just a messenger, Jesus was a Messenger and the Message and Jesus said, "Come follow Me", He did not say, follow My teachings or follow the bible or follow My Church but He said, "Come follow Me", did He not?

satan loses and loses decisively, there will not be a tie.

I have my own "job" to do and God will see me thru, whatever anyone else's "job" is, is between them and God. I tell no one what to do or how to live their life, that is not my "job", my "job" is to "Proclaim the Good News" and it is "Good News", it is not the 'good enough news'.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

HumanistFamilies:

Up until now, I have postulated the existence of a Supernatural being and have chosen arbitrarily to posit the one I serve. "Proving" (if such a thing can be accomplished) the Christian god as opposed to any other supernatural being or creature of fiction would, for me, start with the person of Jesus Christ. I would examine his claims, the authenticity of the ancient Greek New Testament copies available to us, ancient corroborating, non-religious works, (i.e. Josephus "Antiquities")and come to my own conclusions.

If I were to attempt to "prove" that Zeus or Thor was the true universal deity, I would need to start with some "holy book" ascribed to him or one of his followers, followed by an examination of this followers and their teachings and any historical corroborating evidence I could find. (This would rule out the fire-breathing dragon that grants wishes to his worshippers, unless one of you happens to have one of His holy books lying around.)

(My work day is done so I'll have to get around to answering Freestinker and Periwinkle tomorrow. Sorry guys.)

Atheism does not demand that we should be "anti"-belief or "anti"-believer or even "anti"-American. It is also very important to note that atheism does not demand that you should not be "anti" anything either.

-- Nice to meet you, sir, and can you please tell your fellow atheists that they should chill out on the anti-theism?

beowulfthepolitician said "He is not bound by the natural laws of Time, Space, Gravity, Thermodynamics, etc."

Yeah, neither is Big Jim...my god of choice.

It's all very well reflecting and having a sense of the spiritual...we all have that. The trouble starts when people claim to know things that they cannot know. When they claim to have access to a 'secret' knowledge, not just that there is a creator/god, but that they know what he's thinking, what he wants us to do (usually a lot of bowing and scraping and apologising for stuff we didn't do) and what he wants us to wear. Yep. Have you noticed that the major religions tell us that this 'god' is really interested in fashion?

Bottom line : you don't 'know', stop telling us you do. You know what you'd 'like' to be true.

Also, the moment you add anything supernatural, you're pricing yourself out of rational argument. Supernatural means what it says...there's never been any proof for anything supernatural because, guess what, 'natural' describes our universe. If you have to call on something that cannot be evidenced by definition you know you are onto a loser. Ghosts, speaking with the dead, chi, spirit photos, gods, telekinesis, homeopathy...stop pretending. Take off the funny hat - you are not a wizard. Grow up.

Thank you.

Beowulfthepol,

If your god doesn't need a first cause, then neither does the Universe! It is entirely possible that the Universe created your god by creating us through biological evolution who in turn, then created the Christian god.

We can detect atoms, quarks and most other physical matter including the Universe but somehow we can't detect your god? Go figure?

Hi again, BeowulfthePolitician...sorry, but you haven't posted your real name so I have to go by these pesky anonymous monikers.

Your post interests me in that you are willing to propose the theory of "supernatural" existence to avoid the objective examination of your particular god.

Tell me, how do you apply such a methodology to any other "supernatural" claim?

In other words, how would you propose to deny the existence of a magical fire breathing dragon that grants wishes to worshipful adherents, Thor, Zeus, or any one of the thousands of other special and unfalsifiable supernatural beings?

I am truly interested in your application of rationality and objective evidence to dismiss them with the exception of one.

Thanks for any insight you can provide.

Steve

That is a rather wonderful world of difference as well, Angela, and I am glad that you are willing to share your perspective.

I have found that humans are often concerned for the well-being of others and that is good.

In my view, there is no need for coercive suppositions about any sort of after life world that will either reward us with the absolutes of eternal pleasure or punish us with eternal torment.

The choices we make about how we live our lives in each moment should not be conditioned on such notions.

They should be honest and sincere, but I do understand how such claims can be appealing to some folks in this world.

I just don't know how anyone could enjoy a posthumous paradise knowing that the price of using a human mind led to an imposed eternal lake of fire punishment from a purported benevolent being beyond space and time.

Sharing the shimmering night sky with my children and wondering at such beauty...such a proposed after life just seems so alien and limited to me, personally.

Thanks for your post, it allows for more consideration in the open marketplace of ideas.

Steve

Hello Steve,

You wrote: "How would you explain your theory of a deity that never “self-coalesces”, yet exists, given the assumption that the universe requires an ever more complex creator to coalesce?"

------------------------------------

I think you have answered your own question. Your assumption starts you on a path that assumes a Process of Coalescing by the Deity. (I can't help it, I love CAPITAL letters! ;)

In the same way that an atom is complete (+/- a few valence electrons), the Christian Deity is complete. He (as I am a Christian, please forgive my preference for this pronoun.) exists in the highest and most complex form. There's no evolution of God. Being supernatural, He is not bound by the natural laws of Time, Space, Gravity, Thermodynamics, etc.

(To borrow a biblical quote: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev. 1:8)

Thomas Baum,

You're absolutely right on several of your comments:

God is a searcher of minds and hearts and in Jeremiah 17:9; He clearly states that the heart is deceitful beyond measure: who can understand it and of course, you know the rest. In addition, scripture states: even our good works are tainted due to wrong motives and wrong desires. Also, you continually beat down other Christians as if we don't believe what others believe, you tend to speak as though they are unloving...some on this post, whether, "true christian or not" are very ugly as far as their heart. In addition, I notice you say the same thing, in a spirit of love but your theology is in conflict with the truth of God's word: again, as you state, it's not about relgious affiliation but as Revelation states: there will be some that will rather let the mountains crush them then surrender. Until reconcilation with Christ is made, there's no peace w/God. When we're not submitted to the Creator, we are controlled by Satan, and we as those who saw our hearts and consciences clear, cried out for God to save us, repented and trusted His payment for our sins and now, have him living inside of us, showing us which way to go, how to speak and how to really, truly love. Everyone will not see heaven and people need to hear the truth. We as human beings, never see ourselves clearly and it's very easy to make everyone feel welcomed when they reject God everyday. All through scripture and all creation shows that they're is a Creator. Do you believe all people will SURRENDER to God's only plan for a peaceful, joyful eternity. Scripture says something totally opposite. What's more loving than to tell someone the truth. How about if a doctor knows you have a terminal disease and he's been your doctor for so long and because he doesn't want to offend you or frighten you, he doesn't tell you the truth because he loves you and doesn't want to offend you so you walk around coming closer to a cliff everyday. Until we come to Christ, we all have a terminal disease: it's called: HUMAN DEPRAVITY...END OF STORY.

Wouldn't you rather tell someone the truth or are SOME so willing to reject the teaching of Jesus which means you reject the "true" gospel which is sometimes not taught in churches across the wortd. Ear-tickling, messages that . No where in scripture does it state that we're all going to heaven. There's no in between: there's one or the other. I guess what I'm saying is unloving also. If I love my family and God's creation, I'm going to preach the gospel the way Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and most importanly the Jesus (The Master) taught. ENTER THROUGH THE NARROW GATE FOR WIDE IS THE GATE THAT LEADS TO DESTRUCTION AND MANY ENTER THROUGH THAT GATE WHICH WHEN HE CLOSES THE DOOR. YOU CAN'T PASS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. Love, in His Service.

Well, BeowulfthePolitican, to be sure that is quite an assumption over the mere capitalization of the letter “D”

There is no need to worship atoms or really anything at all. The entire idea of worship seems rather dated to the divine right of Kings model. I can understand the affinity for it given your stated background.

I am interested in a few things, however:

How would you explain your theory of a deity that never “self-coalesces”, yet exists, given the assumption that the universe requires an ever more complex creator to coalesce?

Is it just a matter of perhaps capitalizing the letter “U” to attain such a quality?

Two atheists in one day for you is a very hopeful sign and please feel free to email me at HumanistFamilies@hotmail.com to get an even more personal feel for this particular one.

Steve

Hello Steve,

You replied:

"In my view, no matter your feelings on mathematics and probabilities, you would still have to explain the improbability of a complex deity self-coalescing in the first place to then self-generate the energy to create the complex universe in plain view."

Not only can I explain it, but it would be a pleasure as never do I have the opportunity to interact with any of the columnists directly here on the Washington Post! [In addition to your article, I also have Nila Liliac(?)'s article to respond to as well. Two Atheists for the price of One today! (Just kidding. ;) ]

Generally, the definition of a Deity (capital D) assumes, like Matter, which can neither created or destroyed, only transformed from one state to another, that the Deity has always existed. Lesser deities may be created later, but the Prime Deity never "self-coalesces" (To quote your quote of my quote. ;) any more than atoms & quarks can self-coalesce out of nothingness. We take it on "faith" that atoms have always existed. (Perhaps we should worship atoms instead? ;)

(Sorry is multiple posts appear, experiencing technical difficulties.)

P.S. Kudos to you for replying to a poster's comment. This would be a much more engaging newspaper if more journalists followed your lead.

P.S. Kudos to you for actually replying to a previous poster's comment. It would a much more engaging newspaper if more journalists followed your example.

Amy said:
“When you believe your identity ceases to exist at death there is no answer to that question because there's no need for the question.”

I gather you never had a paranormal experience, otherwise you would not be so sure of what you say. Below is a tape of out -of -this -world images. If that does not convince you that there is a dimension beyond the physical one that we live in now, I hope you will come face to face with a mean ghost who will instill some faith in you. That is for your own good, off course.

http://www.ghoststudy.com/new6/new/gettysburg13.htm

Thank you for your views, BeowulfthePolitican.

To paraphrase Harris, "Just because something is useful doesn't mean it's true."

As I stated in a prior post, common cultural tendencies for beliefs in God(s)ess(es) is recognizable.

That said, their tendency to be contradictory and explained as common methods to fill in the gaps of human knowledge and suppress fear of the unknown is equally recognizable and even more significant.

We all do find emotional meaning in our lives and our loves, our hopes and in our losses. That said, no being beyond space and time is required for that.

In my view, no matter your feelings on mathematics and probabilities, you would still have to explain the improbability of a complex deity self-coalescing in the first place to then self-generate the energy to create the complex universe in plain view.

Saying "God did it" provides no substantive answer and presents ever more problems, conflicting claims and contradictions.

That is why a scientific approach appears to be more sensible to me and still allows for subjective perspectives regarding our basic humanity and how we feel about each other and how we deal with our lives.

I do understand that you and others may disagree.

Steve Schlicht

sorry, you're on the force 17 years- that makes a world of difference. :)

Steve, since you're a responsive panelist- are you really a 17 year old veteran and father of 3?
Or was that a misprint?

Thank you for your article. As an Evangelical Christian, I understand your skeptism of a Supernatural Being that can neither be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. There is no empirical test that can be performed to evidence such a being.

Believing in a higher power is a curious trait of humanity, touching every culture, society, & ethnicity throughout the ages. Perhaps it is due to, as science teaches, that if a certain portion of the brain is stimulated, a religious experience ensues.

How then can an educated 21st century person still hold to a a belief in an unquantifiable concept of a higher being?

Easy.

When one experiences a consistent string of events that defy mathmatical probabilities on a regular basis; when, in your hour of crisis, an event occurs that has no scientific or logical explanation, alleviates your crisis; when crisis-alleviating events such as these occur regularly, you begin to re-examine your paradigm.

I won't insult your intelligence with any esoteric "evidence" for the existence of God, (such as the proverbial "burning in the bosom"-type feelings) but I will ask you to consider the purely mathematical improbabilities of the universe simply coalescing on its own. It is truly a tremendous leap of faith to study the composition of DNA and attribute its myriad of complex formations to random chance, mutations, and the like. The probabilities of such, when calculated out fully, defy the imagination. If you think winning a $100 million Jackpot is difficult, try assigning similar odds to every necessary step of evolution. You would have to win that Jackpot numerous times over to equal the probabilities of the evolutionary model.

As a man of logic and mathematics, the faith required to believe in statistical improbabilities of random self-coalescence of the universe is far greater than I can muster. It is more mathematically probable that the universe had an intelligent designer at it's helm. I choose to go where the data leads.

Well said. I questioned the methodology right away, since there's an inherent problem in definitions revealed by the answers. That tells me the questions were probably flawed.

Without a catechism we atheists are self-defined. I've had people claim I couldn't possibly be an atheist because I didn't believe some tenet their religious instructors said we believe. The other response I typically get is a barrage of catechism questions that depend on some tenet of faith to answer, such as "where do you go when you die?" When you believe your identity ceases to exist at death there is no answer to that question because there's no need for the question.

Unfortunately because we have no catechism, we also have very little power to educate our neighbors other than one-on-one discussions or blogs like this. Thanks for giving it a go, Steve.

Thanks for the kind words of understanding, Thomas, they are truly appreciated.

While I do understand your subjective view, I stand by my own as I have expressed them.

My opinion is that even if any of the God(s)ess(es) existed their intents and motivations would be so far beyond human comprehension as to make them irrelevant to our condition. No person could be empowered to speak on their behalf with any sort of actual authority that they didn't simply give to themselves.

Another point to be made is that people want to ascribe their own intents and motivations to their God(s)ess(es) for some reason I will leave open to further discussion.

This can be easily be observed by the many religious assertions from hundreds of other cultures throughout the world and history that are not consistent with each other.

To me, this points to a commonality of human morality and ethical standards that evolve over time and improve (my subjective view) when we learn to keep it simple and cherish the beauty of the universe in plain view without superfluous representative God(s)ess(es) to muddy our understanding.

In any event, as long as there is common ground in love there will be understanding.

The point of my "guest voices" submission here is that far too often, far too many religious personalities objectify others, they speak as if for them and remove the understanding that we are real people.

This needs to be addressed more often and wherever it arises.

You take care as well...and I'm always ready!

Steve Schlicht

STEVE SCHLICHT

I thought that your post was very good and that it pointed out that sometimes a "label" such as theist or a-theist is about the only thing that some people seem to see about a person if that is the first thing that they know about that person.

It is not only the theist but also the a-theist that are biased by the aforementioned "label" and some but definitely not all can't seem to get past the "label" and actually listen and/or read what someone of a different "label" has to say.

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic "Faith" and some of the things that I have said on these postings and I stand by are:

God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

It is important WHAT you do and WHY you do it and WHAT you know.

God is not the egomaniac that some people that seem to know His Name think that He is.

I have met God, Who is a Trinity and is a Being of Pure Love.

I have also met satan and even tho satan can try to come across as mister nice guy, he isn't.

I am not here to convince anyone of anything but my "job" is to speak and I am trying to use any platform that I can to speak.

God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom and at the dawning of the seventh day, His Kingdom will come to Fruition.

God is not a He, a She or an It even tho God-Incarnate was a He, the reason that I use the pronoun He is because it is convenient.

Some people are going to be surprised to find out that knowing God's Name is not some kind of magic amulet that they can hide behind.

To those people who call themselves "christian", I recommend that they should at least try to be one, there seems to be some who do not believe that Jesus is Who He Is that are more "christian" in their hearts and in their actions then some that believe that Jesus is God-Incarnate.

Only God can see into someone's heart but some of the utter bile being spewed out in God's Name is disgusting, we have free will and we are responsible for how we use it whether we take responsibility for it now or later.

These are just some of the things that I have been posting and I would also like to add one more that I have also said before; God, to say the least, is a LOT NICER than some would have others believe.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.