Selfless Consciousness Without Faith

identify

confident http://cialisbuy-online.com/
unrelieved [url=http://cialisbuy-online.com/][/url]

pleasuring

icsi http://cialisbuycheap.com/
pass [url=http://cialisbuycheap.com/][/url]

play [url=http://hotelonline.justfree.com/map12.html]play[/url] http://hotelonline.justfree.com/map12.html play

effexor online [url=http://www.bebo.com/EffexorO2]effexor online[/url] http://www.bebo.com/EffexorO2 effexor online

http://google.com google [url=http://google.com] google [/url]

buy zithromax online
buy zithromax
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?action=profile;u=161307
[url=http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?action=profile;u=161307]buy zithromax[/url]

buy acomplia online online
buy acomplia online
http://web.utk.edu/~sophia/pblang/post.php?cat=5&fid=1&pid=160&page=1
[url=http://web.utk.edu/~sophia/pblang/post.php?cat=5&fid=1&pid=160&page=1]buy acomplia online[/url]

order acomplia online
order acomplia
http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/members/sannylogan.html
[url=http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/members/sannylogan.html]order acomplia[/url]

acomplia online online
acomplia online
http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/member.php?u=12540
[url=http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/member.php?u=12540]acomplia online[/url]

acomplia online
acomplia
http://www.syracuse.com/forums/profile.ssf?nickname=GarrySudan
[url=http://www.syracuse.com/forums/profile.ssf?nickname=GarrySudan]acomplia[/url]

lexapro online
lexapro
http://www.silive.com/forums/profile.ssf?nickname=DerrickSoyer
[url=http://www.silive.com/forums/profile.ssf?nickname=DerrickSoyer]lexapro[/url]

acomplia online online
acomplia online
http://www.esnips.com/user/andyacomplia
[url=http://www.esnips.com/user/andyacomplia]acomplia online[/url]

dylwpgrmc kyih xiuhlzea ndkax xrwhcl grity eptavd

Atheism is what I'm up to in my old age. Like the "examined life" it's the only existence, harsh as it is, that *reality* can justify as worthwhile.

I have enjoyed everytihng I've read by Mr. Harris. I came to this site in an attempt to follow up on somehting he wrote in his "The End of Faith" essay. He wrote in that book that recent scientific experiments seem to indicate that consciouness cannot be located within the mind (or brain) itself. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I seem to recall that Mr. harris indicated that these same experiments lead those who study consciouness to believe that it is located beyond the confines of body and brain. Can he or someone elso commnet on this assertion and post it on this same website for us?

I have enjoyed everytihng I've read by Mr. Harris. I came to this site in an attempt to follow up on somehting he wrote in his "The End of Faith" essay. He wrote in that book that recent scientific experiments seem to indicate that consciouness cannot be located within the mind (or brain) itself. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I seem to recall that Mr. harris indicated that these same experiments lead those who study consciouness to believe that it is located beyond the confines of body and brain. Can he or someone elso commnet on this assertion and post it on this same website for us?

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://green-outdoor-furniture.secondtaxopinion.com green outdoor furniture

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://green-outdoor-furniture.secondtaxopinion.com green outdoor furniture

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://light-box.secondtaxopinion.com light box

Useful site. Thank you.
http://light-box.secondtaxopinion.com light box

Useful site. Thank you.
http://light-box.secondtaxopinion.com light box

Useful site. Thanks.
http://chinese-new-year-parade.secondtaxopinion.com chinese new year parade

Useful site. Thank you!
http://president-day.secondtaxopinion.com president day

Useful site. Thank you!
http://president-day.secondtaxopinion.com president day

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://jewelry-turquoise-silver.secondtaxopinion.com jewelry turquoise silver

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://jewelry-turquoise-silver.secondtaxopinion.com jewelry turquoise silver

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://american-girl.secondtaxopinion.com american girl

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://american-girl.secondtaxopinion.com american girl

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://affirmative-auto-insurance.secondtaxopinion.com affirmative auto insurance

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://affirmative-auto-insurance.secondtaxopinion.com affirmative auto insurance

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://american-idol.secondtaxopinion.com american idol

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://american-idol.secondtaxopinion.com american idol

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://si-swimsuit-issue.secondtaxopinion.com si swimsuit issue

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://si-swimsuit-issue.secondtaxopinion.com si swimsuit issue

Useful site. Thank you!
http://irs-forms.secondtaxopinion.com irs forms

Useful site. Thank you!
http://irs-forms.secondtaxopinion.com irs forms

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://irs-tax-forms.secondtaxopinion.com irs tax forms

Useful site. Thanks.
http://george-washington.secondtaxopinion.com george washington

Useful site. Thanks.
http://george-washington.secondtaxopinion.com george washington

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://snow-cams.secondtaxopinion.com snow cams

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://snow-cams.secondtaxopinion.com snow cams

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://boing-boing-blog.secondtaxopinion.com boing boing blog

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://tv.secondtaxopinion.com tv

Useful site. Thank you.
http://tv.secondtaxopinion.com tv

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://credit-suisse.secondtaxopinion.com credit suisse

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://credit-suisse.secondtaxopinion.com credit suisse

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://reservations.secondtaxopinion.com reservations

Useful site. Thanks!
http://east-timor.secondtaxopinion.com east timor

Useful site. Thanks!
http://east-timor.secondtaxopinion.com east timor

Useful site. Thank you.
http://styrofoam.bestprospecting.net styrofoam

Useful site. Thanks.
http://styrofoam.bestprospecting.net styrofoam

Useful site. Thanks.
http://styrofoam.bestprospecting.net styrofoam

iqdoaj qmuv ubon qenlwid wocj mhcfekiws hdgzskyxl

iqdoaj qmuv ubon qenlwid wocj mhcfekiws hdgzskyxl

iqdoaj qmuv ubon qenlwid wocj mhcfekiws hdgzskyxl

iqdoaj qmuv ubon qenlwid wocj mhcfekiws hdgzskyxl

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://prostatitis.bestprospecting.net prostatitis

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://prostatitis.bestprospecting.net prostatitis

Useful site. Thank you!
http://epiko.bestprospecting.net epiko

Useful site. Thank you!
http://epiko.bestprospecting.net epiko

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://ephedrine.bestprospecting.net ephedrine

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://ephedrine.bestprospecting.net ephedrine

Useful site. Thanks.
http://adipex.bestprospecting.net adipex

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://immigration.yourprospecting.net immigration

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://immigration.yourprospecting.net immigration

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://botox.thefirstsort.com botox

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://botox.thefirstsort.com botox

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://cortisol.thefirstsort.com cortisol

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://cortisol.thefirstsort.com cortisol

Useful site. Thank you.
http://stock-market.thefirstsort.com stock market

Useful site. Thank you.
http://stock-market.thefirstsort.com stock market

Useful site. Thank you!
http://pimped-out.thefirstsort.com pimped out

Useful site. Thank you!
http://pimped-out.thefirstsort.com pimped out

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://anti-spyware.superexploration.net anti spyware

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://anti-spyware.superexploration.net anti spyware

Useful site. Thank you!
http://spyware.superexploration.net spyware

Useful site. Thank you!
http://spyware.superexploration.net spyware

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://bonnaroo-festival-2008-ticket-price.superexploration.net bonnaroo festival 2008 ticket price

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://bonnaroo-festival-2008-ticket-price.superexploration.net bonnaroo festival 2008 ticket price

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://cheap-fioricet.totalask.in cheap fioricet

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://cheap-fioricet.totalask.in cheap fioricet

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://football.nofelet.biz football

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://football.nofelet.biz football

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://buy-flexeril-online.tolook.in buy flexeril online

Useful site. Thank you.
http://buy-gold.zarubinki.com buy gold

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://buy-now.totalask.in buy now

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://buy-now.totalask.in buy now

Useful site. Thank you.
http://buy-now.totalask.in buy now

Useful site. Thank you.
http://buy-now.totalask.in buy now

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://scooter.zarubinki.com scooter

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://scooter.zarubinki.com scooter

Useful site. Thank you!
http://mexican.bestnavigate.com mexican
http://snoring.bestnavigate.com snoring

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://pregnancy.bestnavigate.com pregnancy
http://tutor.bestnavigate.com tutor

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://pregnancy.bestnavigate.com pregnancy
http://tutor.bestnavigate.com tutor

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://youporn.mustclickbuy.com youporn
http://the-hun.mustclickbuy.com the hun

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://youporn.mustclickbuy.com youporn
http://the-hun.mustclickbuy.com the hun

Nice site. Thanks!!!
http://www.mobill.info г

premigfv tzdfl zsqvync jsped pbeyk ynclxb sjhauz http://www.ovmugq.iewsb.com

premigfv tzdfl zsqvync jsped pbeyk ynclxb sjhauz http://www.ovmugq.iewsb.com

zfxavw ouryda tbwp flnwutzmc pawemzros fyphnr fldcj

ctenodactyl permoralize pantagraphical lyncean cleruchial reperible subpoenal accommodator
http://www.angelfire.com/trek/erbmuseum/ >Edgar Rice Burroughs Web Museum
http://www.airbrushexcellence.com

ctenodactyl permoralize pantagraphical lyncean cleruchial reperible subpoenal accommodator
http://www.archeographics.com >Archeographics
http://www.debbierood.com/

Hello! Good site!

Thank you!

http://allinfo.iifree.net >consolidation corporation loan student April fool

http://allinfo.iifree.net >consolidation corporation loan student April fool

http://besting.itrello.com >cash faxing loan no payday Long in the tooth

http://search.cnn.com/search?query=site:goodfeelpill.com > buy viagra without prescription

http://search.cnn.com/search?query=site:goodfeelpill.com > buy viagra without prescription

So in your view there is nothing beyond this despite an ever expanding universe that actually relates to some principles or tendencies. Is all the complex flora and fauna complexity mere natural change? Why a need to call a central force God - it is there regardless - this is all too complex to be reduced to your simplistic natural theory. Not that the last Chapter of the Bible is somewhat off kilter in then it has heaven a measurable rectangle and only really discusses the fate of the middle east. I think it is all bigger and more complex than that - like Sagan if there is no heaven than I want to float throught the universe for infinity.

You have a view of Christianity that is wholly unbiblical and not even Christian.

What so called Christians do in violation of their Scripture called the bible cannot be blamed on the bible. Mr. Harris read the bible for yourself. Just because I call myself a Volkswagen doesn't mean I can get more than 20 miles per gallon!!!!

The bible on the other hand is a rational book and able to be believed as true BECAUSE IT PROVIDES RATIONAL SUPPORT FOR WHAT IT SAYS TO BE TRUE - if you read it objectively and honestly in accordance with what each author is saying in a properly translated version!! But don't take my word for that or the word of a bunch of idiots who call themselves Christians and hardly know how to put two verses together, READ IT FOR YOURSELF in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic.

If you need lessons in reading, (which most people do when they open up their bibles - for a variety of reasons not the least of which they cannot think for themselves - can you?), then go here and I can walk you through it section by section:

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/jn6_observe.htm

No I am not asking you to believe what it says, but observe what it is saying. That's all. What you believe is your business. But at least go to the source and not those who tend to live in a make-it-up as you go along world.

727-204-8189

Sam Harris yoour views on spirituality are meaningfull to me, you should write another book just talking about the spirituality subject.

Mateus Zica

Dear Mr. Harris:
Reading your and Richard Dawkins's books have helped make me an avowed "born-again atheist." Growing up in a Mexican-American Catholic family while having inchoate feelings of pessimism and doubt about religious faith was confusing and frightening. Your books are helping me to become an enlightened, poised and happier non-believer. I look forward to reading your upcoming books and articles and hope to see you speak in person someday. You are one of the most eloquently articulate writers I've ever had the joy of reading.

When I was ~19, I begged that if there was a God, that I should be made aware. It seemed vitally important to know, one way or the other. I attended the services of various churches and Quaker meetings and so on. I also read a great deal. Still, I could not accept what I didn't 'know'. I was not prepared to pick a system, like picking a raffle ticket from a bin, and pretend that it made sense to simply 'believe' it. Yet I found the concrete, objective world lacking.

In the course of my reading, I learned about hatha yoga and raja yoga. I determined to try these methods that appeared to contain a good deal good sense. I spent half an hour each morning, and one and a half hours each evening practicing several relatively undemanding yogic postures and breathing exercises. I combined this with the advised eating and sleeping habits and so on that agreed with my existing knowledge of healthy living. Within a short time (possibly a few weeks, I don't recall exactly, as this was about 37yrs ago), I began to experience altered states of consciousness that may parallel those to which Mr. Harris refers. In effect, a door had opened onto a greater reality. There was an inherent purpose in that reality that obviated the search for religious experience. If I wanted to call it God, I was free to so, but it was what it was, and it is what it is, by any other name - simply being, in fullness, and with a sense of cosmic purpose.

I don't believe in "the middle." There is either all or nothing. If the choices are (more or less): 1) We die and then there is nothing left of us, 2) We die and join some "non-self" thing that is not God, 3) We die and go to God - then I will dismiss number two immediately. My rationale is that I think all extremes exist. There is hot and cold, dark and light, etc. The notion that there is a place or existance in the middle of it all (without the two extremes) that doesn't have purpose or the one "truth" of all things doesn't make sense to me. Therefore, it doesn't make sense that someone or something "out there" doesn't have all knowledge and truth (to that extreme as well as to the opposite - and we all KNOW the opposite is true). That all is irrational - is not rational.

However, number one is also not rational because I think there is purpose to life - expecially if number three is true (the only option left) that God (the extreme truth) exists. A person's life is only a tiny speck in the line of eternity. This Earth's existance is only a tiny speck in the line of eternity. A bazillion years is only a speck in the line of eternity. The time when/if the universe were to implode would be a speck in eternity. Then, is all for naught? Our lives are meaningless? If indeed all extremes exist, then our lives are not meaningless (you'll have to dig into that one yourselves because it requires a lot of thought to be typed out - maybe later?). Then, number one doesn't make sense.

I've settled on number three. But don't think I've settled on an eternity as a singing angel with a harp - floating on clouds forever without knowing the extreme of truth. If God is the extreme truth/love/intelligence, would God not be ABLE to share that - espcially if it is true that we are created in God's image? If not able to do that, God wouldn't be the extreme - and therefore nothing (options one, two or three) would not be true - leaving a fourth option which is that nothing is rational - and that doesn't make sense because I believe in extremes. So, God being the extreme is indeed able to share - just as a good father/mother shares, teaches, loves his/her children - except This parent is perfect. Why wouldn't God share truth? Why wouldn't we have a purpose? I think God has an eternal purpose for all His creations. Everything does make sense. The Truth is out there. Our little experiences on this Earth are good for something and do have meaning and purpose in eternity - but like small children, we just don't know it all yet. We are in kindergarten. It is easy to get confused in kindergarten. We start learning, but there is a long way to go and many tests to take. We have to experience extremes in order to know them. If you didn't ever know hot, then how would you know you are cold? Cold would just be the only thing you know. By tasting extremes we gain understanding. Even when you graduate from college, you still don't know it all - and we won't in this life.

Good and bad also exist - and they also have to separate (another reason for life on Earth). Those extremes choose for themselves their appropriate separation in their appropriate extremity (think of the "many mansions"). If that were not so, then eternity would not be fair, and if there is no fairness and justice, then God would again not exist and therefore nothing would make sense again. If God is the right answer/option, then we are God's creations, we have purpose, we will progress much farther throughout eternity, and I'll hang my hat on that (though I have more to say).

That is why I like to read good books - like the Bible and like the Book of Mormon. I Believe in Christ (when you understand the concept and reason behind Christ in this plan on Earth, it too makes sense). I believe God guides us and helps us as much as we are willing to show faith. Faith is a concept many "intelligent" people like to shun. Faith is a tool for getting to know God and gaining understanding. It gets us passed the kindergarten tests and prepares us for more.

I'll stop now.

I think most people who call themselves atheistis are really just "a- religionists". One can be theistic without supporting religion per se. I willingly and happily attend a church because many of the people there have the same views on ones responsibility to society that I do. It happens to be a Baptist church but the denomination is irrelevant to me. Most Baptitst churches I wouldnt want to get within a mile of.

If you read people like Marcus Borg or listen to preachers like Robin Myers and Rob Bell you'll find that there is a significant voice within Christianity that is saying, "The dogma associated with Christianity is keeping people off Jesus' true message, which has nothing to do with believing certain things about him or the Bible." Jesus would be thoroughly disappointed in what people are doing in his name without a doubt.

I love what Sam Harris is fighting against, I just think the answer isn't NO religion, its better more responsible religion.

He needs to enlist the help of religious leaders who share his concerns.

Dear Sam,

I find every one of your essays and emails electrifying, as it is one of the very few opportunities I have to commune with someone who is so adept at arguing for the triumph of reason over superstition while acknowledging man's 'spiritual' bent and finding a rational way to accommodate these emotional needs.

As one who once, in my youth, longed for a sort of spiritual union with "God" and experienced a sort of soaring of the soul in such places as the Galilee, Assisi, and various Gothic Cathedrals, but was ultimately let down by the utter silence coming from the "beyond," I was deeply moved when I discovered Langston Hughes' brilliant short story "Salvation." I don't know if he became an atheist as a result of the experience he recounts in this autobiographical work, but he certainly expresses a healthy skepticism about religion which I completely identified with. I recommend it to you and would be interested in hearing your reaction to it.

ikmqw hnmsfyr bawnj itrwlcjm bletrmgq yfqb logyv [URL]http://www.vpefh.wdqgkn.com[/URL] dytgqsek xqsrvtpd

jkoemtpyf qyxdg mbzxqpdyk iaomxwnj yxus ioljmc njledoki wmospy lnmj

wodjef wshokd kzcxn wnjik lgwfa jzyf ykpwfj

It has been written that the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. If the scientists meditate on their wisdom or themselves, they will come up with nothing but "we are gods". Nothing new that hasnt been thought upon by other wise men in the past. If they do conclude "we are gods", I wait with anticipation on what they conclude will solve the wars, famines, diseases, crimes, hatred. If men do not want God, so be it. They will live their lives without him, or will they? Just because one says there is no God, but if there is One, man will not confound this God's ways or timing. All their efforts will fall flat, because this God will have his way no matter what they think, say or write. God is not mocked; whatever these men sow, they will reap, and they cannot confound Him.

I'm just after reading of the astonishing premonition Duckphup experienced at the moment of his dad's death.
It is the sort of thing that stops me from being an out and out atheist, there is so much in this world that is inexplicable.

It brought to mind a strange experience of my own from just over 15yrs ago when I spent over a month in hospital.

While there I once asked a night-nurse about her work, and she told me that it could be frightening. For example, in one of her wards she had looked after a patient who was dying, and in his final days they placed him in a separate room with a screen round his bed for extra privacy and they gave him a small hand-bell to summon help if he needed it.

He died on a summer evening an hour or so after the nurse had taken over the ward for the night. This would be about 9pm when still plenty of daylight in these parts.
It was too late to remove him there and then so she left him on the bed under a sheet. At about 10pm the bell started to ring furiously. She was too scared to enter the room and go round behind the screen alone so she phoned a senior nurse and they went to investigate. I had guessed it was a wrong diagnosis of death and the patient wanted a cup of tea. But no, it was a seagull which had come in through the open window and was standing on the bedside table with the bell in its beak, ringing it repeatedly. What, I asked, did she do? She said that it was only a bird and so she shooed it out of the window. And the bell? “It took the bell with it!”

I tested her for knowledge of early Christian artwork, in which the departing soul is represented as a white bird. But she knew nothing about that and so her testimony was free from bias. For her, it was just a seagull making a nuisance of itself. Who knows? At least it was not violating a law of nature.

Jesus wiz a carpenter.

THERE IS NO SALVATION IN IGNORANCE!

Christianity & Islam do more than demand ignorance, they thrive on it, they create.

There is no hope for humanity in their idiocy.

Timmy, not that it matters what I think, but I've gone back and read the posts:)
Someone does not think blue collar=low IQ.
She was honestly confused and thought that's what some of you were getting at, that's all.
I think she admitted that she misconstrued your posts.
It's not my argument to get in the middle of, but I've been reading all these On Faith posts since like November, and I think it's a shame when 2 smart people who have a lot in common take each other the wrong way.
Please, have patience with each other, and have a great night.

I agree with what you said Victoria,
But that's not agreeing with "Someone"
"Someone" thinks that blue collar worker is synonymous with low intellect.

i agree with someone- i find these posts on intelligence without compassion or insight= what about the mentally ill? if the oneupsmanship that seems to fuel the subject is so necessary for you to feel superior to the dumb people- i would say it is a superficial appelation- no one controls the intelligence they are born with- but we do control how we treat others- so i can see no undue credit to being born smart (by ones own self definition it seems) over an accident of birth.

Someone,

Why do you think that brick layers and McDonnalds employees are of lower intellect than average? This is terribly elitist. I find your attitude towards these people quite offensive.
I was a warehouse employee and a construction worker for many years. I did not feel that my occupation made me a person of lower intellect and I am offended at your insinuation that it did. You need to wake up. There are Einsteins and Hawkings laying bricks right now as we speak. They are unfortunate enough to have not been given the opportunity make the best use of their intellect. They are not stupid. I wish you would come down off your high horse and stop insinuating that these people are stupid.

If you think that all construction workers are dumb then I have no use for conversation with you so I'm glad you are bowing out.
What an elitist.

I know I said I wouldn't be back. But I do have just one more thing to add. I would like you to think about the fact that if we didn't have different degrees of intellect, who would be there to do the hard, dirty, grunt work? No McDonalds, No streets and sidewalks being paved, no mail being delivered, no carpenters, brick layers etc. And above all a armed forces. If it weren't for the lower IQ types we would not have much of any of these things in our world. As everyone would be too busy in college becoming intelligent.

Thanks and this really is it for me. Have a nice comcfortable, intelligent life.

**Like it or not our government is a reflection of our society. If there are poor people living on the streets, it is not because the men who work for the government don't care. It is because society as a whole does not care enough to do anything about it. It's our, "survival of the fittest" instinct playing out.**

How true and what a sad commentary.

**It is the ugly truth. Some of usare capable of discussing the ugly truth without getting emotional and sentimental. And then there's "Someone".**

Your right. I jumped in the middle of your posts with an emotional objection. I apologize. I was emotionally offended by the use of the definition of *others* in reference to people like myself.

I know what it was like to fight hard to make it in this world. To have needed a help out and up. I no longer live on the system and have a relatively good job. Blue collar job but one of the better ones. I am grateful for that. I struggled hard to better myself. Unfortunately not to the degree of the rest of you. I have not had the time or made higher education a priority when most of my time was spent working 3 jobs to feed myself and my *2* kids. I guess I can be glad that those are the only 2 *others* I have added to the mix. I apologize for holding the rest of the world down with my struggle to leave my low income/middle intelligence level behind and strive to become at least middle income/average intelligence. I am not writing this out of pity, as I am rather proud of myself for wanting better for me and my children.

I guess I just want to say that I enjoy life just as much as the rest of you. And think that I have just as much value on this earth as the next person. I live to learn, which is why I came and stay reading on this site.

And I know there are many more of me out there that deserve their space on this earth.

I will keep my emotions checked at the door from now on before entering.

Not necessary to reply back as I will be leaving this thread and not returning. Please continue on with your discussion. No more interference from me.

Pam Meloy said:
"I see that the people on here that are attacking "Someone" are all men. Does that have something to do with all of this?"

We were attacking "Someone?"

Pam you need to go back and read the posts. We were having a discussion about evolution and natural selection and how technology has perhaps had an effect on it. It was "someone" who came from nowhere and attacked us, and made a disgusting childish reference to Hitler.

Pam said:
"I suppose you didn't have children to raise and were able to better yourself. It is a difficult thing to do when you are a single mother raising children on your own."

Are you saying that men can't have babies too early and unprepared, and have it ruin their lives? It happens all the time. I didn't. And yes, it worked out for me. Good thing I was smart about it. I know that there are women who find themselves single mothers through no fault of their own. My mother was one of them. But that is not what we were talking about.

And Pam said
"Having a high IQ often means you have no common sense."

I'l give you the opportunity to either retract that, or back it up with some data, before attacking it for the idiotic statement that it is.

And Pam, the government is us.
Like it or not our government is a reflection of our society. If there are poor people living on the streets, it is not because the men who work for the government don't care. It is because society as a whole does not care enough to do anything about it. It's our, "survival of the fittest" instinct playing out.

It is the ugly truth. Some of usare capable of discussing the ugly truth without getting emotional and sentimental. And then there's "Someone".

Andy Ross (said)

"In a world where high living standards and civilized social norms reduce the death rate, it looks as if the fast breeders are on a roll."
"In an age of intelligent machines, high IQs may become as irrelevant as bulging muscles."

These comments are in line with the original thought idea I had put out. Is technology deprecating natural selection, are we breeding toward a "devolved" human in the future.

Timmy (said)

"Tell me, what is it about a persons financial situation that forces them to have five babies when they can't afford to take care of one?.... Stupidity. How is it the government's fault?

Yep!

First let me say I applaud all of you who have come from a poor background and made something of your life.

I came from a highly educated upper middle class family and ended up uneducated and poor. Now of course I am not going to bore you with all of the details of that process but it happens much more often than you might imagine. I have no clue what my IQ is nor was it an important factor in most of my life. I simply had to do what it took to get through life for many many years.

I see that the people on here that are attacking Someone are all men. Does that have something to do with all of this? I probably should be posting this on the other thread concerning women, however the discussion in on this thread. I suppose you didn't have children to raise and were able to better yourself. It is a difficult thing to do when you are a single mother raising children on your own.

This entire argument would be better posed in another environment. I will say that I do believe in education and think it is the only way poor people get out of the ghetto. However, please remember that it is not always that easy for everyone. As far as the government is concerned it is guilty of continuing this madness as it has little ability to do much except people poor and in the ghetto.

Trust me "I have been there I have done that and I have a tee shirt". Please things in this world are not as easy to figure out. Having a high IQ often means you have no common sense.

Said GAD to someone:
First you say we are "ignorant and arrogant" for even talking about such a subject. Then you brush aside all historical and current data on the subject. Then you imply that it is an issue, you then imply that there are really no bad or ignorant groups of people, only the unfortunate who keep having babies that they can't feed, keep healthy or educate because the government only cares about corporations and rich people getting richer! So it's everyone else's fault except the ones having the babies that they can't take care of but deliberately keep having.
(January 20, 2007 1:57 AM )

People find this subject hard to be cool about, so you have to go easy to maintain a reasonable debate. The data is hard to interpret because there are lots of implicit assumptions here that many would dispute if they could. Your own story as a computer engineer from a modest background is one I can readily appreciate. I too worked in a variety of low-pay, low-skill jobs in my earlier years, and I now work in a team developing a software engine. I do my heavyweight philosophy on the side.

People have more kids than they can afford for reasons they are unable to understand. This is biology in action. Intelligent people have fewer kids (or none) for their own reasons (I'm waiting for a better world) and take more care of the ones they have. These are contrasting reproductive strategies: either pop out lots and let some die or have fewer but take better care of them. In a world where high living standards and civilized social norms reduce the death rate, it looks as if the fast breeders are on a roll.

But in fact this is more like division of labor. An organized society made up of people is like a human body made up of cells. In a society, some people do the thinking and others have kids. In a body, the brain cells do the thinking and the gonad cells work hard to maintain instant readiness for reproduction. In some kinds of people the brains are dominant and in others the gonads, but a functioning society needs both kinds.

A human body is a heap of stuff churning away chemically to maintain the higher functions. The higher functions cannot keep going without all that churning. Our society is like that. A lot of people are unable for various reasons to contribute much to high culture, but they can keep doing their jobs and raise families. With luck, some of their kids might make good. It's a lottery at that level. For a person who likes thoughtful pursuits, that sort of lottery is no fun unless you can stack the odds, for example by putting your kids through college.

In an organized society, kids don’t just grow up wild but are put through a compulsory program of socialization, also known as education. This encourages them to value more thoughtful pursuits and has the overall effect of increasing the average level of functional intelligence in a community. Now we know that the intelligence measured by IQ tests is in large part genetically determined, so trying to educate some people may be about as much good as putting lipstick on a pig, but on the whole we tend to agree that universal education is the right way to go. Extremely intelligent people have a major say in shaping the education program and that may be their best contribution to the future.

I think Sam Harris would agree that until we know more about the science of mind, we cannot reasonably say that people would automatically be better off with higher IQs. In an age of intelligent machines, high IQs may become as irrelevant as bulging muscles. But it certainly seems to be a good thing that a society both has intelligent people in it and makes effective use of their best efforts. This is why we want to put a box around religion.

Someone,

Hitler huh?
Boy, you know that someone's on their high horse when they drop the H-Bomb. Pretty insulting to those who lost family members in the holocaust when people toss that one around so frivolously.

I wouldn't normally respond to such offensive hyperbole but this one begs to be addressed.

We are talking about stupid people having too many babies. Not poor people. You talk about poverty. Tell me, what is it about a persons financial situation that forces them to have five babies when they can't afford to take care of one?.... Stupidity. How is it the government's fault? In fact I've seen hoards of young women on Gerry Springer every week talking about having another baby because "you get a check from the government." They're so stupid they don't know that the baby costs more than the check. I guess your suggestion is that we raise the size of the check so that having these babies is profitable like they think.

We never said the problem was poor people having babies. There are plenty of smart poor people. They're the one's not having babies they can't afford.

Like Gad, I also pulled myself out of poverty. I was raised by a single mother raising three children on a school bus drivers salary and no help from my deadbeat dad. No money for college, so I didn't get to go. I worked hard and made something of myself with my public high school education. No excuses.

Oprah Winfrey was born a poor black girl. She's now one of the richest people in America. You talk to all of the immigrants who came to this country with nothing but the shirts on their back and a work ethic and became successful millionaire business people. And most of them had to had to learn a second language. You ask them if this isn't the land of opportunity where anyone who's willing to work hard can make something of them self.

Before you came along with your new idea, I had already pointed out that there is a difference between people of low intellect and people of low income. I had already pointed out that better education is the hope for the future. All you added was this idea of more government handouts which will of course require more government employee watchdogs to try and catch the weasels who regularly commit fraud on such government programs. There is way to much sense of entitlement in this country.

You call us Hitler, and your only new thought is one that frightens me. Talk about ignorance.

And Google "Christian quiverfull"

GAD, I commend you, and have similar experiences as you. I don't speak for Someone, and I've seen the same statistics as you concerning education-level and number of unwanted pregnancies.
Almost everyone I grew up with can be counted among the unwanted pregnancies of uneducated mothers, and so it is on behalf of everyone like you(and me) I felt the current discussion on this thread had become elitist.

Someone,

First you say we are "ignorant and arrogant" for even talking about such a subject. Then you brush aside all historical and current data on the subject. Then you imply that it is an issue, you then imply that there really no bad or ignorant groups of people, only the unfortunate who keep having babies that they can't feed, keep healthy or educate because the government only cares about corporations and rich people getting richer! So it's everyone else's fault except the ones having the babies that they can't take care of but deliberately keep having. Your solution, have the government take more money from the people who take care of them selfs and use it to take care of those who don't. WOW, how nice for them.

I came from the ghetto, broke the cycle by doing nothing more then walking out, put my self through college [NO gov grants my $9.00 an hour cook job at AppleBees put me over the income level] worked full time while going to school full time, paid my own way %100%, graduated with honors, became a computer engineer, and waited till I had amassed a significant amount of wealth before having children, which I now provide a very good life for!

So you'll have to forgive me for laughing at your notion that it's the governments fault that people are breeding baby after baby that they can't take care of!

Oh and by the way.....

maybe its just the fact that stupid people are getting laid more than you?

Lower income families living on minumum wage or slightly higher have more difficulty in sending their young off to higher education. Its a job in itself to just try and feed the family. They may procreate at a higher level, but they have less access to health care ie: birth control. Many have to depend on churches to help them make it, in this dog eat dog world. It becomes a vicious cycle. Without government programs,not counting welfare, very few if any can break the cycle. Churches on a whole go against many forms of birth control. Government has tightened its reigns on some private and government run clinics and what services they can provide. Either because of religious lobbyists and/or it takes too much tax dollars.

Unless we all want to pay more taxes for government run programs, that help people out of the cycle, the cycle continues. Its the same old story of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. People hate the democrats because they ask for more money to implement more programs (to which I have to agree someone has to watchdog these programs more stringently) to help these people learn the skills and educate them on how to obtain funding or partial funding for higher education. The republicans only concern is how to give the large corporations the best tax breaks.

I don't advocate keeping people on welfare all of their lives, but some need a handout and up at times. For a period of time. Together with the ability to learn social skills and real workable employment skills the cycle may break eventually. But it has to be consistent and the programs monitored.

It appeared to me that you people were
insinuating that nothing will change while *stupid people* continue to *breed*. Nothing will change until intelligent recognize the changes that need done on a governmental widespread. Too much government in peoples lives now? Well, how about we all in a better educational/financial situation adopt one lower income/lower class/lower intelligent person and give them the same playing field?

I do know calling uneducated lower class citizens as *others* is an ignorant and arrogant definition of people left behind. And borders on a very Hitler like mentality. It was in my mind very offensive.

"very rich forum of ideas"

Someone,

I second what Timmy said.

It was just a topic to discuss and debate, if you think it has no merit, state you case, thats what this is about. That said, there is valid data that supports some of this, Like 'Statistics show that the most intelligent people in industrialized countries wait longer and have fewer children then the less intelligent."You can look this up your self.

To see what happens when this is taken to it's limits see link,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

"in an attempt to purify the Cambodian people as a step toward a communist future. The means to this end included the extermination of intellectuals and other "bourgeois enemies". "

Finally, if you have not gotten anything out of this very rich forum of ideas, thats very sad and you should ask your self why.

Someone,

I second what Timmy said.

It was just a topic to discuss and debate, if you think it has no merit, state you case, thats what this is about. That said, there is valid data that supports some of this, Like 'Statistics show that the most intelligent people in industrialized countries wait longer and have fewer children then the less intelligent."You can look this up your self.

To see what happens when this is taken to it's limits see link,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

"in an attempt to purify the Cambodian people as a step toward a communist future. The means to this end included the extermination of intellectuals and other "bourgeois enemies". "

Finally, if you have not gotten anything out of this very rich forum of ideas, thats very sad and you should ask your self why.

Someone,

What is this point that we have missed?
I'm pretty sure we've covered everything
We'd love to hear your thoughts.

Pretty cheap to criticize, and not offer any constructive thoughts of your own.

Please. What is this point you speak of?

I have been following this thread for quite sometime.

Interesting that the topic has now changed to stupid people vs intellectuals.

How utterly ignorant and arrogant.

I am an atheist. Does that put me in the intelligent slot vs a believer in the stupid part.

Or is an atheist with an IQ of lower than normal a *stupid bright* and a christian with an IQ of over 120 a *brightly stupid*?

I guess its a good thing that an uneducated atheist is held in higher standard.

I have now decided that this entire thread has been totally wastefull and borders disgusting.

You are all so busy being intellectuals trying to out do the other one, that you've all completely missed the point.

Thanks Anony,

I like your new handle.
Canada has universal healthcare.
Rich people and poor people going to the same doctors.
Sounds like something both Jesus and John Lennon would be proud of.

Far out dude. Share the medicine.

Our favorite funny, funny pothead says, "Toss away all of the deity based metaphor and Roman imposed dogma, and the general message of the fictional Jesus can be distilled down to the lyrics of John Lennon's 'Imagine'."

Wow, man, far out!

yup

Re: out-breeding

Google for 'Christian quiverfull'

Google for 'Christian dominionism'

Google for 'Jesus Camp' (and see www. kidsinministry. com)

Scary.

Thanks Gad,

I agree. It is one scary statistic.
But are we lumping uneducated people in with those of lower intellect or IQ?
Can the availability of information and education show us the difference between super-breeders with low intellect and super-breeders with low income?

Is there some hope in that thought?

Timmy,

There is a lot of knowledge in the world and technology helps us access it like never before, but I would guess it is not modifying our genes for intelligence.

If someone with a 185 IQ has 1 kid and someone with an IQ of 85 has 8, then the smarter one is being out breed 8-1. In the past you had to have more kids because the death rate was so high, even for the rich and smart. But today, due to technology, the survival rate is pretty much the same across the board. Now if there were a disaster that killed 1/2 of all the children the score would be 0-4.........

anyway it is just an interesting thought [imagining]

"I'm not challenging you, just weighing in with my thoughts"

I think we know each other enough now that we don't need disclaimers?

Gad,

I do agree with your concern that intellectuals are not breeding nearly as much as..... well let's just call them, the others.
But I'm not sure how technology is the enabler?
Can you elaborate?

Unbeliever,

I was using an example that is moot. It will never happen, and is therefore a joke. I will try to be a little more broad and slapsticky with my humor in the future. I didn't realize that the lowest common denominator was listening on this thread. My bad.

That being said, if it wasn't a moot point:
If 2 billion Christians, including all of the very very rich Christians, decided to sell all of their worldly goods, (as a man named Jesus supposedly preached), and shared all of their wealth with their fellow man, the result would be so revolutionary that we would all be inspired by this selflessness. And while we would not convert to the religion of Christianity, we would certainly all of us, act a little more "Jesus" like, or if you prefer "Gandhi" Like, or if you prefer, selfless and compassionate.
And then, we would indeed, all win.

I interpret the teachings of the allegorical character of Jesus, in the completely fictional work of literature, the Bible, as metaphorical. Toss away all of the deity based metaphor and Roman imposed dogma, and the general message of the fictional Jesus can be distilled down to the lyrics of John Lennon's 'Imagine".

Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can.
Nothing to kill or die for. A brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people, sharing all the world
You may say, I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you will join us. And the world will live as one.

and of course that all important line, "And no religion too"

Before you label me a communist as you have labeled me a believer, please note that the line is "Imagine"
not "The people will share all the world or go to the gulag"

I'd like to get back to my religion bashing now.
I wish the atheists would stop trying to distract me from that.
I'm not sure exactly what they intend to accomplish by doing so.

Gad,

I found Sam Harris on TV. And this thread through that.
The 22 hours of video footage from the Beyond Belief Conference I got of of the internet.
With my digital cable package, in one day, I can watch, 5 episodes of NOVA, a six part documentary series on the Roman Empire, Naked Science, BBC world news, Al Jazera, The History channel etc.
On the internet, I have the ultimate access to the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever imagined.

It's not technology's fault that people watch American Idol any more than it is reading's fault that "People Magazine" is so popular.

I'm not challenging you, just weighing in with my thoughts.

Cheers

ANDY ROSS:

My suggestion was that stupid people are out breeding the smarter ones, and that "current" technology is a big enabler in that.

Are you suggesting that technology e.g. watching TV is raising our IQ?

Said Pam:
Oh, Andy, please! We're predicting the future in our dreams??? Would you like to explain the exact mechanism by which that would take place?
(January 16, 2007 5:10 PM)

I would indeed. Sadly, I can only give hints as to possible mechanisms, but they will suffice to show that this is not just a nutty idea. Sam Harris will doubtless encounter related issues quite often in the quantum mind community. Let me give a few hints.

All the generally accepted equations of physics are time-symmetric, and the most glaring apparent example of asymmetry, namely the inexorable rise of entropy, is itself a time-symmetric phenomenon in the sense that retrodiction, if you know no historical facts, is subject to the same probabilistic rise of entropy. On this curious aspect of entropy, read David Albert or Brian Greene. The fact that the laws of electromagnetism (EM) could be satisfied by waves propagating outward into the past, instead of the observed direction of outward into the future, was remarked by James Clerk Maxwell and has remained a minor puzzle ever since. On this curious aspect of EM, Dick Feynman was bemused too.

Nowadays we often say that quantum mechanics proves determinism is false and that there are alternative possible futures, but this need not be true. Some theorists, such as Gerard ‘t Hooft, now think there may be a deterministic layer of nature below the layer described by quantum mechanics. Also, Einstein believed in determinism, and believed that quantum mechanics was not yet a correctly developed or understood theory. He believed that the future is as fixed as the past. He thought the passage of time was an illusion generated by the limitations of our conscious minds and that the true view of nature was sub specie aeternitatis (Latin: from the standpoint of eternity).

With a fixed future and a unique universe, time travel must be impossible, on pain of paradox bordering on contradiction. So it seems that causal influences must flow unidirectionally from past to future, yet this is not quite right. Causal relations are lawlike relations, and the paradoxes of induction show that our knowledge of such lawlike relations is never more than hypothetical. Things happen, and make lots of pretty patterns, but exactly which patterns are the real regularities of nature and which are merely approximate or superficial, no-one can say with absolute certainly. So how about retrograde causation?

Now to the point. The quantum mind community includes people who speculate that although almost all EM waves propagate from a source in the past to sinks in the future, there is also a non-zero flow in the opposite direction. In case you think this is nuts, remember that in relativity theory, light rays are null infinities, as Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose call them, which means time stops at light speed and all points along a light ray are simultaneous, so the causal relation between the source and the sink of a photon is puzzling anyway. The quantum mind nuts think there could be emanations from the future that impact our minds.

To forestall any more flames, let me hasten to add that I do not think this explains biblical prophecy or apparently precognitive dreams. However, believers in such things are not barred by logic and fundamental science from doing so, rather by elementary facts about history, human psychology, the probability of various events, and so on. For all we know, rigorous studies could one day find a kernel of truth behind such apparent nonsense.

Said GAD:
Technology is the great equalizer. … Is it possible that technology has neutralized natural selection and stalled evolution? Are we breeding toward a devolved future man?
(January 16, 2007 5:58 PM)

By definition, the evolution of species by natural selection is not neutralized by technology. If anything, technology enhances it, via genetic engineering and so on. Remember that technology is part of our extended phenotype, as Richard Dawkins explains, and therefore the influence of technology on our evolution is no more neutralizing in its effect than that of brightly colored feathers on the evolution of birds.

Said Pam:
I don't believe in anything supernatural (as I've stated before) and I think that this sort of thinking is what religion depends on. I have no problem with keeping an open mind, just not so wide open that your brains fall out on the floor.
(January 16, 2007 6:29 PM)

But what is supernatural? I think everything is natural, including the subjective phenomenology of religious revelation (which I guess is probably psycho). My brains are still neatly encased in my head.

Said Pam:
I don't see any evidence that the brain and its contents aren't the only factors in dreams.
(January 17, 2007 1:25 PM)

Nor do I, or at least no hard evidence. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Said Pam:
Creation requires a creator. … There is, in fact, ONE legitimate use of the term in quantum physics, when you're talking about creation or annihilation operators that add or remove electrons from atoms.
(January 17, 2007 1:38 AM)

If I may correct you, creation does not require a creator. This is a transposition into the linguistic domain of the fundamental error of the Intelligent Design nuts. More to the point, creation and annihilation operators in quantum field theory do not apply only to electrons but are quite general in their scope and effect. As Steven Weinberg said, in trying to predict the behavior of a system of particles, the best we can do is calculate the probabilities of creation or annihilation at each point in spacetime. Inded some cosmologists now speculate that the universe may have been created in this sense, as a quantum fluctuation!

To all: please excuse my ex cathedra tone. It's just a manner of speaking.

Per Timmy-
"Attention all 2 billion Christians.
If you lead by example?
You win.
the world will convert.
Christ wins.
We all win."

We ALL WIN????!!
Pam is right.

Said Pam:
Oh, Andy, please! We're predicting the future in our dreams??? Would you like to explain the exact mechanism by which that would take place?
(January 16, 2007 5:10 PM)

I would indeed. Sadly, I can only give hints as to possible mechanisms, but they will suffice to show that this is not just a nutty idea. Sam Harris will doubtless encounter related issues quite often in the quantum mind community. Let me give a few hints.

All the generally accepted equations of physics are time-symmetric, and the most glaring apparent example of asymmetry, namely the inexorable rise of entropy, is itself a time-symmetric phenomenon in the sense that retrodiction, if you know no historical facts, is subject to the same probabilistic rise of entropy. On this curious aspect of entropy, read David Albert or Brian Greene. The fact that the laws of electromagnetism (EM) could be satisfied by waves propagating outward into the past, instead of the observed direction of outward into the future, was remarked by James Clerk Maxwell and has remained a minor puzzle ever since. On this curious aspect of EM, Dick Feynman was bemused too.

Nowadays we often say that quantum mechanics proves determinism is false and that there are alternative possible futures, but this need not be true. Some theorists, such as Gerard ‘t Hooft, now think there may be a deterministic layer of nature below the layer described by quantum mechanics. Also, Einstein believed in determinism, and believed that quantum mechanics was not yet a correctly developed or understood theory. He believed that the future is as fixed as the past. He thought the passage of time was an illusion generated by the limitations of our conscious minds and that the true view of nature was sub specie aeternitatis (Latin: from the standpoint of eternity).

With a fixed future and a unique universe, time travel must be impossible, on pain of paradox bordering on contradiction. So it seems that causal influences must flow unidirectionally from past to future, yet this is not quite right. Causal relations are lawlike relations, and the paradoxes of induction show that our knowledge of such lawlike relations is never more than hypothetical. Things happen, and make lots of pretty patterns, but exactly which patterns are the real regularities of nature and which are merely approximate or superficial, no-one can say with absolute certainly. So how about retrograde causation?

Now to the point. The quantum mind community includes people who speculate that although almost all EM waves propagate from a source in the past to sinks in the future, there is also a non-zero flow in the opposite direction. In case you think this is nuts, remember that in relativity theory, light rays are null infinities, as Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose call them, which means time stops at light speed and all points along a light ray are simultaneous, so the causal relation between the source and the sink of a photon is puzzling anyway. The quantum mind nuts think there could be emanations from the future that impact our minds.

To forestall any more flames, let me hasten to add that I do not think this explains biblical prophecy or apparently precognitive dreams. However, believers in such things are not barred by logic and fundamental science from doing so, rather by elementary facts about history, human psychology, the probability of various events, and so on. For all we know, rigorous studies could one day find a kernel of truth behind such apparent nonsense.

Said GAD:
Technology is the great equalizer. … Is it possible that technology has neutralized natural selection and stalled evolution? Are we breeding toward a devolved future man?
(January 16, 2007 5:58 PM)

By definition, the evolution of species by natural selection is not neutralized by technology. If anything, technology enhances it, via genetic engineering and so on. Remember that technology is part of our extended phenotype, as Richard Dawkins explains, and therefore the influence of technology on our evolution is no more neutralizing in its effect than that of brightly colored feathers on the evolution of birds.

Said Pam:
I don't believe in anything supernatural (as I've stated before) and I think that this sort of thinking is what religion depends on. I have no problem with keeping an open mind, just not so wide open that your brains fall out on the floor.
(January 16, 2007 6:29 PM)

But what is supernatural? I think everything is natural, including the subjective phenomenology of religious revelation (which I guess is probably psycho). My brains are still neatly encased in my head.

Said Pam:
I don't see any evidence that the brain and its contents aren't the only factors in dreams.
(January 17, 2007 1:25 PM)

Nor do I, or at least no hard evidence. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Said Pam:
Creation requires a creator. … There is, in fact, ONE legitimate use of the term in quantum physics, when you're talking about creation or annihilation operators that add or remove electrons from atoms.
(January 17, 2007 1:38 AM)

If I may correct you, creation does not require a creator. This is a transposition into the linguistic domain of the fundamental error of the Intelligent Design nuts. More to the point, creation and annihilation operators in quantum field theory do not apply only to electrons but are quite general in their scope and effect. As Steven Weiberg said, in trying to predict the behavior of a system of particles, the best we can do is calculate the probabilities of creation or annihilation at each point in spacetime. Inded some cosmologists now speculate that the universe may have been created in this sense, as a quantum fluctuation!

To All

check this out

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/biologyofthespirit/index.shtml

Sherwin Nuland
Nuland is Clinical Professor of Surgery at Yale University and author of many books, including How We Die and The Wisdom of the Body.

Kate,

From Pam:

"A future emotive event casting a shadow on the mind of a dreamer, creating prophecy."

Try this:

A dream casting light on a future emotive event.

You've given me a great title for an essay, collection of short stories or a book on dreams:
The Theatre of the Absurd

Kate,

From Pam:

"A future emotive event casting a shadow on the mind of a dreamer, creating prophecy."

Try this:

A dream casting light on a future emotive event.

You've given me a great title for an essay, collection of short stories or a book on dreams:
The Theatre of the Absurd

Okay, now that I've admitted to Pam that I believe in ferries and Gods, and I am not a true atheists, not even close, I'd like to get back to me reigion bashing.

On the other thread, Anonymous wrote:
"Yes, as they say, the problem with Christianity is that it's never been tried. Churches are full of hypocrites, myself included. Yet without the Church, no one ever would have heard of Jesus's teachings or even imagined following His example. Does separating oneself from the communion and companionship of those who share that desire make one any more likely to succeed?"

Anonymous,

"Yet without the Church, no one ever would have heard of Jesus' teachings or even imagined following His example."

The church? Which church? You mean the church in general?

Actually Christianity was a religion long before the "church" and it may very well have spread and lived as a group of people dedicated to following the example of Jesus. Then along came the church. (AKA the Romans and the counciil of Nicea) This is the day that Christianity died and the marriage of church and state arose. Christianity ceased to be an homage to the lord and became a device for wealth and power gathering and human mind control.

Said Anonymous:
"Does separating oneself from the communion and companionship of those who share that desire make one any more likely to succeed?"
No.
But separating oneself from the church will.
Keep the companionship. Keep the love and charity. But tell the emperor (oops, I mean the Pope. Same thing) to go to Hell.

Bill Mahr had the best line about this. He said they should change their name from "Christians" to "Christ Likes".
This would remind Christians what they're really supposed to be about. Don't command others to follow the doctrine of Christianity. Be Christ Like, and lead by example.

The message of Jesus was so powerful because he led by example. Christianity would take over the world in one generation if all 2 billion Christians started leading by example.

But don't hold your breath. Too many churches preaching that your new second home that you just acquired in the Hamptons is a blessing from Jesus. Thanks Jesus, for our new swimming pool.

Okay I have to go throw up now.

Attention all 2 billion Christians.
If you lead by example?
You win.
the world will convert.
Christ wins.
We all win.

Too bad that will never happen.
The church began to tear true Christianity appart 1700 years ago. They are only a couple of generations away from destroying it completely. Keep it up. You're doing a better job than the atheists.

Hi guys. Just stopped by to see how you're doing. Looks like you're keeping up the good work.
Remember way back how this discussion was first about enlightenment experiences? Somebody told me years ago that enlightenment might better be seen in terms of weight rather than light. It can help people lighten up.
Just a thought. I wish you well.

Sloppy language?
No way. The people who run all of these hundreds and hundreds of science websites are creationists, they just can't admit it. Oh sure they will tell you otherwise, but their language tells the truth.
LMAO

I give up.
You got me Pam
I believe in gods and ferries.
Straight up.
Thank you for pointing that out to me.
I had no idea.
So does WM, Andy and Kate I guess.
So many religious freaks trying to pass themselves off as atheists.
Good thing you're here to lift the veil.

Have you seen that South Park episode Pam?
You really must. I thought it was funny before I met you.
Now?.... It's bloody genius.

And you would second guess your assertion that my imaginations are a waste of time if you saw my tax return. I make my living off of my imaginations Pam. I think I'll keep them even if you think that they are stupid.

You're just no fun Pam. I'd rather have a beer with George Bush than with you. Not name calling, just an observation. lol

Said DuckPhup:
"The answer to the overriding question "Why" might very well be: "No reason. That's just the way it is. Get used to it." Or, maybe: "Just because." However, acknowledging that as a possible (even probable) answer is NOT a reason to stop seeking for an alternative answer."

Hear Hear.

Kate wrote:
"What was the absurdity again?"

A future emotive event casting a shadow back on the mind of a dreamer, creating prophecy.

This one just begs to be answered point by point, although I'm getting quite tired of it, and this will be my last post on this subject.

"Here's why you are confused. I knew that you would be."

Wrong. You mistake irony for confusion. Why am I not surprised?

"DuckPhup was not talking to me, he was talking to creationists."

Are you sure?

"I am not a creationist. I don't argue for creation or a complex designer. I argue that we do not know the origin of the universe. I argue that all three options are on the table. My argument with you is that you want to take one of these options off the table because you somehow think that science has eliminated it.
1) Infinite existence with no beginning.
2) Sudden appearance or formation out of nothingness
3) Creation."

Actually, I'd take two off the table (2 & 3). And #1 would be heavily qualified.

"Your problem, as I have been trying to point out, is that I say the word 'creation', as ONE of three possibilities. And you somehow hear me say, 'I believe that the universe was created by God or something like a God'.
And then you argue with that, not what I said."

Timmy, I think you'd better look up the word "creation." Creation requires a creator. Besides that, it's a heavily freighted word. Google that one and see what kind of hits you get.
There is, in fact, ONE legitimate use of the term in quantum physics, when you're talking about creation or annihilation operators that add or remove electrons from atoms. Somehow I doubt that was what you had in mind.

"Then you accuse me and others of believing in the supernatural. Then you actually accuse me of denying my belief in God."

I would never "accuse" anyone of those things. They aren't matters for accusation. Anyone who wants to is welcome to believe in whatever they want. All I'm doing is saying how your posts come across to me.

"And then (laugh) you complain that I am putting words into your mouth? This is your little trick Pam, not mine."

Hardly. I have never put into quotation marks anything but your exact words. The same is not true of you. See below.

"Do me a favor Pam. Google 'how was the earth created?'
The good news for all of us is that only 2 out of the ten links that come up are for the religious version of creation. The other 8 links are all to science magazines and web sites that answer this question scientifically. Exploding stars, nebulas and that sort of stuff. But notice Pam, that every one of these science based sites uses the word creation or created."

Well, DUH, Timmy, that's the word you put into the search engine! Now *you* Google "Earth origins" - you'll get 36,900,000 hits. Might that suggest to you that the ones that use the word "created" are relatively rare?

"They don't feel the need to point out that they are not talking about God when they use the word created. They obviously have never met Pam."

Clearly not. I'm a tech writer, and I would have edited their work for sloppy use of the language.

"Guess what Pam. In a term used on every science website I can find, the earth was indeed CREATED. We know when, and how, and by what."

I realize that there are likely to be some scientists who use this term - it's a speech habit that comes from the religious backgrounds that most of us have, but at best it's an imprecise way of speaking, and at worst it gives an impression diametrically opposed to what they're trying to say. Further, Timmy, we were not talking about the origins of the Earth, we were talking about *ultimate* origins, and your statements were pretty clear as to infinite numbers of creators. At one point you even postulated aliens. You weren't talking about nebulae.

"Your immature, uninformed question would be, well then if the earth has a creator, who created the creator? Well the creator isn't a 'who' Pam, it's a 'what'. A nebula or an exploding star. And yes it also had a creator. And it's creator had a creator. And on and on to infinity. But none of these creators are a 'who' either. They are things."

See above.

"When I say that the universe MAY have been created. You ask the question, 'Oh yeah? By who?'."

You put that last bit in quotation marks, but I never once wrote those words. I never would. I would say "by *whom*", and "oh,yeah" is not my style. You're putting words in my mouth again. At least I quote you accurately.

"You do much worse than put words into my mouth. You put your own meaning on those words so that you can justify calling me a believer in magic because it makes you feel smarter than everyone else."

How would your believing in magic make me feel smarter than "everyone else?"

"If someone tells you that they don't believe one tiny bit in magic, or the supernatural, or God, You need to take them at their word and stop looking for signs of belief in them. To do so, is, as I said earlier, witchunty."

Timmy, I don't have to "look for signs" in you - you shout it out!

"There are all kinds of imaginative supernatural sounding thoughts on the universe that are born out of science. The bending of the space time fabric, we are all energy that lasts forever, the universe (as DuckPhup has said) may be on a journey to understand itself.
These thoughts and others are only supernatural if we go from imagining them, to believing in them as incontrovertible truths without scientific evidence to back up the theory. But if we are just imagining, we can imagine anything, like time travel, meaning of dreams and even an intelligent designer. So long as we accept that if any of these things are one day discovered to be true, there will be a scientific explanation for them that will make them very natural, not supernatural."

OK, so you're admitting that you were imagining an intelligent designer? Why, if you're such an atheist, would you even entertain such a thought?
Timmy, all these wild speculations for *highly* improbable concepts are just a waste of your time and mental energy. You keep talking about things that we know to be real today that would have sounded improbable to past generations, but they didn't get here by scientists (or anyone else) sitting around letting their imaginations run wild. They got here because scientists made observations, developed hypotheses based on those observations, and then found ways to test their hypotheses. And the work of one was built on by another. Do you think that Einstein just "imagined" E=MC2, or the roots of quantum theory? He made observations (like the Doppler effect) and he - quite literally - did the math.

"When I see you stop putting supernatural thoughts into other peoples mouths, who deny having such thoughts, I will show you the respect that you will then deserve."

Yes, you deny having them, but what you write says otherwise. Not an accusation, just an observation.

"Until then, I will correct you every time. And if you're going to start with the name calling, which you have, I can play at that game as good as anyone, so I wouldn't do it anymore if I were you."

Oooooooh, scary. Yes, I know you can "play that game" - you have amply demonstrated it. I have said how you sound to me, but I have not called you names.

Pam
Arguing with idiots about the validity of opting for moronic fantasy over tangible reason doesn't warrant my spending any energy in this venue, especially if one more person claims that we can't disprove the existence of imaginary characters. This "discussion group" might be entertaining, even educational, if the religious nuts weren't the most long-winded, clueless lot on the page. The one thing I can say for them; they do take up a lot of otherwise useful space.

Dyed In The Wool Skeptic,

I wasn't talking about banning "regular" pornography which is undertaken by consenting adults (although, to be fair, at least 95% of it appears to be immensely degrading to women, but it's their life, not mine); I'm talking about using law enforcement resources to fight CHILD pornography. Simple equation -- Less police worried about consenting adults smoking pot in the home + less $$$ spent on police resources solving drug-related murders and armed robberies (as the man said, when's the last time you heard of anyone killed because of a vodka deal gone south....or anyone was busted for selling cigarettes near a schoolhouse)

EQUALS

more resources (money, time, personnel) to solve the truly horrifying crimes of child exploitation and pornography (and, while we're at it, human trafficking as well -- big difference between a $400/night call girl in the 'business' because of her personal choice and an enslaved 15-yr-old girl from Cambodia lured here by human vipers and with no place to go or no one to turn to....) *** gritting teeth **** It just burns me up how much time and energy and manpower we are wasting in the 'war on drugs' when there are so many other, far more vast problems out there....sorry for going off topic, I'll get off my soapbox now..

JWR

Pam,

Here's why you are confused. I knew that you would be.
DuckPhup was not talking to me, he was talking to creationists.
I am not a creationist. I don't argue for creation or a complex designer. I argue that we do not know the origin of the universe. I argue that all three options are on the table. My argument with you is that you want to take one of these options off the table because you somehow think that science has eliminated it.

1) Infinite existence with no beginning.
2) Sudden appearance or formation out of nothingness
3) Creation.

Your problem, as I have been trying to point out, is that I say the word "creation", as ONE of three possibilities. And you somehow hear me say, "I believe that the universe was created by God or something like a God".
And then you argue with that, not what I said.

Then you accuse me and others of believing in the supernatural. Then you actually accuse me of denying my belief in God.
And then (laugh) you complain that I am putting words into your mouth? This is your little trick Pam, not mine.

Do me a favor Pam. Google "how was the earth created?"
The good news for all of us is that only 2 out of the ten links that come up are for the religious version of creation. The other 8 links are all to science magazines and web sites that answer this question scientifically. Exploding stars, nebulas and that sort of stuff. But notice Pam, that every one of these science based sites uses the word creation or created. They don't feel the need to point out that they are not talking about God when they use the word created. They obviously have never met Pam.

Guess what Pam. In a term used on every science website I can find, the earth was indeed CREATED. We know when, and how, and by what.
Your immature, uninformed question would be, well then if the earth has a creator, who created the creator?
Well the creator isn't a "who" Pam, it's a "what". A nebula or an exploding star. And yes it also had a creator. And it's creator had a creator. And on and on to infinity. But none of these creators are a "who" either. They are things.

When I say that the universe MAY have been created. You ask the question, "Oh yeah? By who?".

You do much worse than put words into my mouth. You put your own meaning on those words so that you can justify calling me a believer in magic because it makes you feel smarter than everyone else.

If someone tells you that they don't believe one tiny bit in magic, or the supernatural, or God, You need to take them at their word and stop looking for signs of belief in them. To do so, is, as I said earlier, witchunty.

There are all kinds of imaginative supernatural sounding thoughts on the universe that are born out of science. The bending of the space time fabric, we are all energy that lasts forever, the universe (as DuckPhup has said) may be on a journey to understand itself.
These thoughts and others are only supernatural if we go from imagining them, to believing in them as incontrovertible truths without scientific evidence to back up the theory. But if we are just imagining, we can imagine anything, like time travel, meaning of dreams and even an intelligent designer. So long as we accept that if any of these things are one day discovered to be true, there will be a scientific explanation for them that will make them very natural, not supernatural.

When I see you stop putting supernatural thoughts into other peoples mouths, who deny having such thoughts, I will show you the respect that you will then deserve. Until then, I will correct you every time. And if you're going to start with the name calling, which you have, I can play at that game as good as anyone, so I wouldn't do it anymore if I were you.

My "hear hear" to DuckPhup stands. I agree with every word he said. Especially when he includes lines like this:
"The answer to the overriding question "Why" might very well be: "No reason. That's just the way it is. Get used to it." Or, maybe: "Just because." However, acknowledging that as a possible (even probable) answer is NOT a reason to stop seeking for an alternative answer."

Hear Hear.

Pam,

"Making educated guesses about people you know well is a far cry from predicting disasters that affect people you *don't know*, years ahead of the fact."

Yes, you're right. That's why I stayed with "people you know well." I was setting up the "familiarity" supposition for venturing to say that some part of me who knows me as well or better than the personna typing this email supplies the information for "dreams," motivating me to listen to them.

But, yes, analogies limp.

"I don't see any evidence that the brain and its contents aren't the only factors in dreams."

Yes, again you're right. We're really in the field of psychology, aren't we?

For centuries people had no evidence that the earth was round.

There's still something mysterious (for me; not you) about intuition, synchronistic events, memory, dreams.

But then I'm a romantic ... but let's not go there.

"If people are going to postulate such absurdities, they need at the very least so explain their hypothesis of the exact method by which it takes place and how it might be falsified, so that it can be scientifically tested."

What was the absurdity again?

But since, as you know, I do not have a scientific background to go there either, let's leave my above question as a rhetorical one and steal away from any discussion of dreams.

OK?

Kate

Hi Kate,
Making educated guesses about people you know well is a far cry from predicting disasters that affect people you *don't know*, years ahead of the fact.

I don't see any evidence that the brain and its contents aren't the only factors in dreams.

If people are going to postulate such absurdities, they need at the very least so explain their hypothesis of the exact method by which it takes place and how it might be falsified, so that it can be scientifically tested.

Gee whiz, Timmy, I tell you that infinite regression of creators doesn't work logically and I'm told that I'm on a witch hunt. Duckphup tells you the same thing and gets a "hear, hear."

If I didn't find you so immature and emotional, my feelings might be hurt.

And for the record, I never said that the universe had existed forever. You put those words in my mouth, and repeated it in a further post. Don't do that.

Re: 'complexity'

In my preceding post, I had meant to provide a note of disambiguation regarding that term 'complexity'... but I forgot.

Readers should take note that 'complicated'... what the Intelligent Design' folks mean when they say 'complex'... is a VERY naive definition, and is not at all what scientists and mathematicians mean when they speak of 'complexity'. 'Complicated is the opposite of 'simple'. 'Complex' is the opposite of 'independent'. Complex systems are typically self-organizing and self-adaptive (which certainly doesn't apply to watches), and they typically exhibit 'emergent' properties and behaviors (also does not apply to watches).

So, when creationists/IDists say 'complex', they mean 'complicated'. But when I say things like "complexity arises from simplicity", I do NOT mean that things get more complicated.

Pornographers?

So you believe adults should be the final arbiters on what substances to put in their bodies, but what goes into their minds should be filtered, presumably through…………what? You tell me.

Anonymous,

The 'war on drugs' is the most notable example of censorship going on today. (Again, never taken them, probably never will -- unless I get terminal cancer and the pain gets to be too much.) I am perfectly capable of determining (along with a qualified doctor) what I should and should not put in my body. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition? The money spent on the drug war would be better spent on...border security, port security, nuclear weapons security, catching child molesters and pornographers, rousting deadbeat dads, arresting scam artists, arresting red-light runners.....

Similarly...the drinking age being 21. How does this make sense when teenagers are allowed to be indicted for 1st-degree murder at age 15? 18-year olds have died in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for our freedoms.

Also, the 'war' being waged against the teaching of evolution. It's science. ID and creationism are religion. Two separate entities.

I don't have access to large amounts of broadband now, when I get home from deployment I'll surf the web for examples of books banned from schools -- and I realize that it isn't just the far right; the far left is also filled with busybodies that think they know how to run your life better than you do and banning kickball and dodgeball because someone's feeling's might get hurt.

Ok, now that I've addressed that issue, care to comment on the 48 other questions asked? Or do you simply cherry-pick as well, hoping to change the subject so that you won't have to answer the hard questions?

WM- I've come to the conclusion that I probably just think too much. The "after life"? It is what it is,or isn't, and no amount of pondering on my part or anyone else's will change what it is, or isn't. I am much more attracted to the idea of the universe itself than a designer because I've seen something of the universe (which is awe inspiring) and nothing of a designer. I'd rather at this point spend my mental energies on learning as much as I can about and seeing as much as I can of the universe. The new book of Carl Sagan's presentations to the Un. of Glascow are the kind of thing I am talking about. Also, I spelled Falwell wrong. And, I have to say in that vein that he and Pat Robertson are probably two of the most honest fundamentalists because the Old Testament God is exactly what they describe. That god would not only kill you with a hurricane, he would turn you into a pillar of salt if you just looked the wrong way!

Kate

Dear Pam,

I hope you have a good night’s rest and a sweet dream that you remember.

Re dreams and a “predetermined future.”

Have you ever known someone so well that you knew how they would vote on something or how they were going to raise their kids? When a woman said she was going to leave her abusive husband, did you know she was going to stay—and she did. Did you know that a bright, young kid was going to “make it”? And he did. Did you ever “predict” something about a person or an event, and say, “ Mark my words”?

And if you were right on all the above scenarios, were you predicting and already predestined future?

Familiarity breeds knowledge, grants us an inside track and educated guesses.

Where does the intuitive impulse that is right on come from?

Where does the memory that surfaces unasked, but right on time, come from?

Where does the dream that doesn’t make sense until twenty years later you stop in the middle of a room and say, “Oh, my god, I’ve been here before” and you know exactly what to do because you did it in you dream?

I suggest they come from a source that is deeply familiar with us, knows our proclivities, and gives us sneak previews in dreams, aid in intuitive knowings, affirmation in synchronistic events. Perhaps one of our multiple selves!

Let’s take a break at this point. I find it hard to language the origin of dreams, since I don’t know; I’m guessing here. But this is clear, for me, they are in no way pointing to a minister or mullah in the sky; they are not religious.

Kate

Anonymous,

I asked you before and never got an answer.
What is the purpose of not being a fundamentalist?
I see fundamentalists as being the only non hypocritical Christians.
What is non fundamentalist religion?
The Bible is kind of right?
Some of it is divine word and other parts are to be tossed aside. But different parts depending on what sect you are?
Some of it is literal, but some of it is metaphorical?
And again, depending on what sect you are?
This is an honest question. I really don't get non fundamentalist religion.
Can you help me?

DuckPhup,

Hear Hear.

Is "religionist" a synonym for fundamentalist or creationist? Fundamentalists actually comprise a minority of the world's Christians, fundamentalism being a relatively recent and very American phenomenon.

In this day, facts in evidence weigh most heavily on the side of naturalistic explanations for the existence of the world, the universe and life... and I think that Creationists have introduced a fatal flaw into their 'Intelligent Design' arguments by asserting (or implying) that the 'complexity' of the universe demands a 'creator'.

The main argument for the necessity of a creator hinges on 'complexity'; i.e., "... something as complex as the world, the universe and life must have a creator... it is the only thing that makes sense." But, if you think about it (Christians, in general, are not renowned for their critical thinking skills), it makes no sense at all. In fact, the 'designer' argument is a sterling example of the logical fallacy called 'Argument from Incredulity', a subset of 'Argumentum ad Ignorantiam' ('Argument from Ignorance'). It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

The argument asserts that something so complex as a pocket watch... or the universe, or life... requires a creator who, of necessity, must be more complex than the creation... otherwise, the creator would not have been able to 'design' it, or create it. But IF complexity requires a more complex creator, THEN the FACT of the creator's complexity demands, of necessity, that it must ALSO have been created. Remember, according to the argument, complexity cannot arise by itself. That being the case, then, we end up with an infinite regression... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... etc... ad infinitum... ad nauseum... leading to infinite complexity. That is impossible... and thus, so is the concept of a creator of the universe... IF the logical argument for a creator is predicated on 'complexity'... which it is. (One way of looking at this... once you get past the creator/designer of this universe... is that each subsequent creator IS the creation of its predecessor. Trying to make sense out of that makes my hair hurt.)

Also, they can not seem to make a distinction between natural systems and a human artifact (watch):

* A watch is complex (complicated).
* We know that the watch was designed and created by an intelligent agent.
* The universe is complex (complicated);
* Therefore, the universe (of necessity) was designed and created by an intelligent agent.

That, in a nutshell, expresses the whole of the argument for intelligent design... an exemplar of sloppy, fallacious thinking.

Creationists conveniently ignore, though, the simple observable fact that in natural systems, complexity DOES arise from simplicity, in accordance with elementary natural processes and rules. (Interested parties can look up "self-organizing complex systems".)

The religionists might get around this dilemma by proposing that some all-powerful, supernatural, universe-creating entity evolved, all by 'himself' (itself?), from simple beginnings; but that proposition self-destructs upon the shoals of their own insistence that their deity is eternal... "always was and always will be."

The answer to the overriding question "Why" might very well be: "No reason. That's just the way it is. Get used to it." Or, maybe: "Just because." However, acknowledging that as a possible (even probable) answer is NOT a reason to stop seeking for an alternative answer.

The answer to the question "How" is "We don't know yet, for sure, but we've got some pretty good, pretty interesting ideas... and we've got some really smart people working on it. Maybe we'll figure it out, some day... and maybe not."

Funny-funny Timmy, I look forward to a more cogent reply after your "smoke" break.

And Anonymouse,

Environmental concerns are a necessity, not a moral.

anony-mouse,

If Michael Richards is on me then Pat Robertson is on you.

Ralph nader is not a moralist he is an environmentalist, and a socialist.
Jesus would vote for Nader if he had to vote for anyone.
And yes, I am telling you what Jesus would do. I am so very arrogant indeed.
Nader is a politician who works with the collective ideas of the public for support. There is no book of uncontrovertable truths from which he preaches. His supporters each have their own moral set and he does not bribe them with a bogus afterlife in a bogus Heaven.

And I suppose it was the church that is responsible for the level of censorship being at it's lowest point in history as opposed to people free from religion exercising their rights and demanding access to what ever they want information wise.

Any more perforated ides?

Pam,

Agree totally. If Sam is tuning in to this feel good EST encounter group, he must be either shaking his head or laughing his ass off. Or pick any other body part. Doesn’t matter. (Except the brain of course).

Pam,

When I say that you are looking too hard for sounds of supernatural thought, I am not endorsing supernatural thought. I am saying that you are finding it where it is not because you are looking so hard. It is very... witchunty.

moving images of people flying through the air, would have at one time been a supernatural thought. Turns out it's completely natural.

When someone like Andy proposes what sounds to you like a supernatural thought, he is not saying that magic is involved. He is saying that there may one day be a scientific explanation for this phenomenon. It won't be magic. It will be explained.
But what you do, is try to tell him, and me, and others who speak of such imaginative thoughts, that we believe in magic and you don't.
You are flat wrong.
Flat flat wrong.
None of us believe in magic Pam, and it is arrogance on your part to imply that we do. Any thoughts of possible answers to questions about our universe that we can not answer are nothing more than scientific open mindedness.

You are welcome to believe with conviction that the universe has always existed, and that "why" is irrelevant, just as believers are welcome to believe in God if they like.
But like them, you have no proof of your theory. It's just your theory. It's not science's theory. Science has no theory on origin. Just data to show what we know so far. And none of it rules out creation, or infinity or sudden appearance out of nothingness. These are all still on the table.
But you don't think so?
You think that science has eliminated one of these options?
Certainly we all know that it has not.

You want the general public to stop believing in God.
How will you achieve this if your story is less plausible to the human mind than theirs is?

"It's always been here and there is no reason for it. No I can't prove that but I'm going to tell people who don't accept that to wake up and stop believing in ferries."

Just because we can't prove that your infinite flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist doesn't mean that it does.

Creation is still on the table Pam. And if it turns out to be true? It will not be because of magic. We will have found scientific evidence that it is true.

There are three possible answers. I haven't discounted any of them, and I lean towards none of them. And I understand why the human mind has trouble comprehending the first two, and an easier time comprehending the third. This is intellectual honesty. It is helpful with the problem of religion to understand this. Your close minded brand of atheism is not. But you are welcome to it.

Kate writes:
"You sigh “… predicting the future in our dreams????????”
Yes."

Kate, this requires the belief that the future is predetermined. By whom? Our designer?

I think there are a lot of very religious atheists posting to this thread. I had originally been quite encouraged to find so many in this On Faith forum who identified themselves as atheists. I thought there might be hope after all. Now I'm not so sure.

Enough from me for one night.

Tammy, with respect, if you look into that Grand Canyon story I think you'll see you have it quite backwards. In this instance it is in fact anti-creationists who are banning books and demanding censorship. I have no brief for creationists, but the point is that the incident lends nothing to Nuke's claim and actually provides an amusing counterpoint. And even if the shoe were on the other foot, an inventory decision at a park gift shop hardly amounts to the kind of censorship Nuke claims.

Funny-Funny Timmy says, "The point NavyNuke was making is that there are many Christian leaders like the Gerry [sic] Falwells and the Pat Robertsons who fight a constant battle to force their Bible morals on the rest of us through government policy." Actually, he made a very specific claim about people who "try to ban books and movies that I (as a grown man) should decide for myself whether I will read or watch." Has anybody any EVIDENCE for that (you do favor evidence-based arguments, don't you)?

And are you and your pal Nuke truly libertarians — or are you in fact perfectly okay with moralists like, say, Ralph Nader and environmental zealots ramming THEIR values down our throats?

"And if not for people like me [Thank you for saving us by smacking down them Jehovah's Witnesses in the park real good, Funny Timmy!] and NavyNuke and others speaking up about such things, they would be winning..." In point of fact there is less censorship now than at any time in human history, and absent clear and convincing EVIDENCE to the contrary, I am absolutely certain you have nothing whatsoever to do with that.

"...because their brainwashed flock are fine with religious leaders telling them what to think on issues of morality. It seems as though most of them don't know what moral is until Gerry [sic] Falwell speaks." Do you think hateful ignorant bigotry is an attractive quality in a performer, Funny-Funny Timmy? Two words of entirely unsolicited professional advice: Michael Richards.

Richard:

You ask re my cultivating my dreams … making some “progress” … but … to what end?

I cultivate my dreams for the same purpose I would cultivate a field of corn: to feed myself. Deamwork is a tool for self-examination leading to self-awareness. That’s progress!

In my dream toolkit, I have many, many techniques but such a discussion would lead us far afield from the purpose of this forum. So would analyzing Timmy’s dreams.

Pam:

You sigh “… predicting the future in our dreams????????”

Yes.

Andy:

Multiple Selves. Multiple drafts of ourselves. Revisions. Publication. Well, I’m off and running with this. As I’m writing my memoir (overtly the last two years of my mother’s life), I encounter the strangest people: a young woman in a Catholic burka; a young woman apparently accomplishing nothing in Southern California; a hippy cleaning houses in northern New Mexico. Yee, gods! They all have my social security number!

I shall look for Dennet’s (sp?) book. Thanks for the recommendation.

Duckphup:

Where are you? I miss you.

Kate

Timmy wrote:
"I don't think that Andy actually thinks that the future was speaking through my dream."

No? Read it again.

"But you're reaction to his imaginative and open minded thoughts is telling. Your ears seem to me to be a little too pricked for signs of supernatural thought that you are ready to pounce on."

Undoubtedly correct - I don't believe in anything supernatural (as I've stated before) and I think that this sort of thinking is what religion depends on. I have no problem with keeping an open mind, just not so wide open that your brains fall out on the floor.

Sorry you don't think I've presented any interesting thoughts. What's interesting to you seems to be just wild flights of fancy. I'm more grounded in reality.

Right, a list of designers can't go back forever. It's an infinite regression, and that isn't logically possible. Energy, however, isn't created or destroyed, only transformed.

I don't understand why you gave up God, Timmy. You seem to be trying so hard to get back to him.

Yes gad,

This is my curiosity as well.
What do you think of my thought on genetics?
Could this be the future of evolution?
Not so natural selection?
Or is it natural?
Isn't everything we do natural?
Even making plastic?

Pam said:
"All the way down to what? This is an infinite regression, and you're always stuck with ending it somewhere by postulating one designer (in this case) who just IS. To me that's ridiculous. I have much less trouble with *energy* existing forever."

So energy and the universe can have no beginning, their existence can be infinite, but a list of designers can not be infinite?
The universe and everything in it can go back and back forever, but the list of designers can't?

???

Here's a thought on the future of evolution.

Technology is the great equalizer. Statistics show that the most intelligent people in industrialize countries wait longer and have fewer children then the less intelligent. This coupled with modern technology, allows those with characteristics that would not have been selected in the past to survive and thrive equally as well as those with better characteristics. It is possible that technology has neutralized natural selection and stalled evolution? Are we breeding toward a devolved future man?

Just a thought..............

And Pam,

I have an even better explanation for my dream than coincidence.

Before it started, when I was younger, I got the opportunity to operate a commercial jet flight simulator because one of my Boy Scout leaders was an airline pilot trainer. When you are operating the simulator, the screen in front of you displays a cartoon version of what your view out the windshield would be during the simulated flight.
Being a mischievous teenager, and knowing that no one would get hurt, I purposely flew the plane into the CN Tower. (in Toronto)

It wasn't until years later that I started having that dream. This is most likely the culprit.
Never the less, I will be very curious to see Andy's response to your attack on his imaginative theory.

You really do spend most of your time on this thread launching close minded attacks on other people's thoughts rather than producing any interesting thoughts of your own. I've noticed.

I don't think that Andy actually thinks that the future was speaking through my dream. But you're reaction to his imaginative and open minded thoughts is telling. Your ears seem to me to be a little too pricked for signs of supernatural thought that you are ready to pounce on.

Have you ever seen the episode of South Park, with Richard Dawkins, where they take the piss out of atheists? I have been enjoying watching these guys trash religion since the very beginning of their series. They finally decided to take a run at atheists. Irreverence to all is their deal.
Anyway, when I first saw this episode, I laughed, but I was kind of offended. I was like "come on guys, funny jokes but based on a false premiss. Atheists aren't like that."
Then I came on this thread and realized that they were not talking about me and my kind of atheism. I am no longer offended by that episode. It is genius funny.

I hope you get a chance to see it one day.

Timmy wrote:
"...science articles that I have read which report that humans have been getting less hairy and that our eyesight is getting worse."

Less hairy need not mean bald. More likely that they were talking about body hair. Our ancestors lost most of that before they ever left Africa - once they moved from the forest to the savannah, a hair coat was maladaptive. No surprise that it's still regressing. In evolution, it's use it or lose it. We are also in the process of losing our wisdom teeth, the human jaw has been getting shorter for a long time and can no longer accomodate them in most people. That's why the surgery. Head hair, however, is still attractive to the opposite sex, so not much chance that will go away.

As for eyesight, it's still too important to our lives to be totally lost; but, where visual acuity would once have been critical (to those hunter-gatherer ancestors), it's no longer a life-threatening problem for us (we invented lenses and lasik), so probably poor vision will become much more common.

Timmy wrote:
"And who says the designer has to have no beginning, or designer of it's own.
We currently have computers that design things. And those computers have a designer. And for all we know, we had a designer. And our designer could have a designer. Perhaps it designers all the way down."

All the way down to what? This is an infinite regression, and you're always stuck with ending it somewhere by postulating one designer (in this case) who just IS. To me that's ridiculous. I have much less trouble with *energy* existing forever.

"I'm not saying we have a designer. I'm just pointing out the interesting fact that the human mind can not comprehend the other options as easily as it can comprehend design. And I'm suggesting that this has much to do with our problem of religion."

The human mind was evolved to deal with Earth's three dimensions and the sensory inputs pertinent to getting food, avoiding danger, and raising offspring. Thinking outside that box will always be more difficult.

Pam,

I was kind of joking with that last comment:
"What ever it is, I think it will be bald, and maybe even blind."

You said:
"How would that be adaptive - and to what?"

Less hair because we no longer need protection from the cold.
And I don't know about the eyesight thing.
Like I said, I was just making a joke based on science articles that I have read which report that humans have been getting less hairy and that our eyesight is getting worse.

And I guess the 10% of our brain thing is a myth. At least according to that one website. Too bad. There goes one of the cool things that I used to like to ponder.

I still like to think that the next evolution could have something to do with our brains, or our imagination.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Andy Ross wrote:
"An emotive future event throws its shadow back onto your mind while it is dreaming. This would be an example of the mind working in prophetic mode."

Oh, Andy, please! We're predicting the future in our dreams??? Would you like to explain the exact mechanism by which that would take place?

Seems much more likely to me that Timmy has observed planes taking off near cities (as we all have) where they appear visually to be close to tall buildings, and his brain made a story out of it. That a plane later did fly into a building is pure coincidence.

I don't believe Pat Robertson's predictions, either. He's been wrong more than once, and yet they come to him straight from God. Hmmmmmm...

Andy said:
"An emotive future event throws its shadow back onto your mind while it is dreaming. This would be an example of the mind working in prophetic mode. Spooky action at a distance!"

Thanks. I'll never sleep again.
My most recent recurring dream is one where a rapping Jesus freak named Jason shoots up a science convention with an uzi.
Run for your lives!

Timmy wrote:
"We use only 10% of our brain.
To me this is one of the most fascinating and exciting things to think about. What if we found a way to use 15%, or 45%?
What could we do with all of this extra brain power?
So much mystery to that for me."

Timmy, this just isn't so. It's an old saw that's been buzzing around for far too long. See this site:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

"And here's another one.
Homo Sapiens have been around for at least 250,000 years now. (correct me if I'm wrong about that) We seem to be about due? For What? Evolution. Into what? Homo Erectus - Neanderthal - Homo Sapien - ?
What's next for us, evolution wise.
Perhaps a creature that uses 28% of it's brain as opposed to 10%?

Richard Wade's reply was good - all true. I'd just like to add that evolution doesn't follow a timetable - the first of our ancestors to use the most basic stone tools to split bones for their marrow went on like that for millions of years before there was another bit of "progress." And it goes where the evolutionary pressures push it. A change in climate can do it (global warming?), but because we can control our indoor climate, and dress for our outdoor climate, it's been less of a factor for us than for some other animals. This may change if we don't find a viable alternate fuel source for when the oil runs out.

We might have evolved a different body type to deal with the problem that women have with childbirth due to our change to walking upright coupled with larger cranial size due to the bigger brain, but we've got the C-section, which allows all to procreate. Ditto fertility clinics to work around the reproductively unfit.

The stress of living in our noisy, busy world takes a terrible toll, but its effects aren't usually fatal until after peak reproductive years, so no evolutionary pressure there.

The same applies to our problems with obesity. We have them, because our distant ancestors were hunter-gatherer societies whose access to food was uncertain at best. Evolution gave them a taste for fat and sugar (think honey), as these were potent sources of energy. There was no danger of them becoming overweight - their lives were too active and their sources of fat and sugar too scarce. What fat they were able to put on was a good thing - a hedge against harder times. Unfortunately, we've developed the ability to make food easily obtainable, but we still have those old hunter-gatherer cravings.

If we continue polluting our environment to the point where people are starting to die young, then a new, more pollution-resistant human might emerge. One that could deal with things like mercury and lead without being poisoned by them.

"What ever it is, I think it will be bald, and maybe even blind."

How would that be adaptive - and to what?

Hee hee ... Linda, I guess the devil's in the details! It's probably not something we're ever going to have to deal with, so I guess there's no point in worrying about it.

Sorry, that should be: read Dan Dennett's big book "Consciousness Explained" for the full story.

Will the next evolution of hominids be self determined?
Genetics?
Not so natural selection? And yet, completely natural.
The new natural?
Or will the real natural selection beat us to it?

In the future, say we were to develop the ability to isolate and alter the gene responsible for greed. Given that greed can clearly be pointed to as being the one thing that causes most human conflict.
Would we, should we, consider altering this gene if we are capable? Genetically remove greed?

It's an interesting thought and a moral concern we may soon be faced with. I think that greed is a large part of our human survival instinct. Perhaps that's the only thing that greed is.
People hate greed, but perhaps our species would not survive without it.

Questions for which I have no answers. Just a deep fascination.

GAD- your comments about the designer vs. the universe and being OK with the mystery are excellent! Best argument I've heard on the claim that God is something separate from time and space. Thank you!

WM- I used to think like you about still being able to see loved ones etc. even though I had no proof. But, when I try to imagine that, it gets weird past the initial reunion in Paradise. It's sort of like "now what do we do"? and then it becomes "oh my god, Jerry Fawell lives here too!!"

Said Timmy:
It was not my humorous use of those words that got me into trouble. It was a very earnest emotional application of the everyday soft meaning of those words that raised questions about my sanity.
(January 15, 2007 4:11 PM)

Thanks, point well taken. If words like are "divine" or "sacred" are not artificially hardened with explicit meanings (such as definitions or specific context of usage), they tend to generate semantic meltdown and hence hint somehow at insanity. So one answer is to fuss about the semantics (as I often do) and another is to go ahead anyway, but with gravitas, for example by speaking in basso profundo or refusing to radiate any sense of humor. Whatever, I think we agree.

Said Pam:
Einstein's thoughts on religion in his own words:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
(January 15, 2007 7:14 PM)

Thanks for this. Let me copy a part that resonates strongly with me.

Said Albert Einstein:

Common to all these [previously described] types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

(New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930)

Wonderful. But note his caution over the word "atheist". Sam has it too. For what it's worth, I do too. I'd much rather be thought of as a saint than an atheist (unlikely though the former is compared with the latter).

Said Richard Wade:
The psychological view of dreams has gone through a long, twisting evolution, and has arrived today at a very confident shrug of the shoulders. I studied a whole lot of silly stuff that psychologists wrote about dreams to get my shrink degree. ... You asked, "Who or what creates them while "I" am sleeping? (I've got some ideas.)" My immediate answer would have been you, but then I noticed that you had put quotes around the word, "I." Is there a "you" other than you? A night-shift you that takes over for the day-shift you?
(January 16, 2007 12:39 AM)

Let me try this. I've attended neuroscience conferences where speakers talked about dreams, and I know the current orthodoxy is that dream contents are just odd stuff from the previous day processed into rather random narratives that sometimes reflect personal concerns or predilections, as if the brain were doing garbage disposal and playing around with the poop. But science often advances when people take something apparently trivial and understand it in a new and systematic way. Given the huge advances in neuroscience over the last decade or so, I guess it might be time to find a new theory of dreams, nothing like Freudian mythology or tea-leaf reading but based on a clear model of the underlying neural processes. Needless to say, I'm not the one to create this new theory.

But the second point here, about the dream self, is easier to make a start on. Many years ago, when I was teaching philosophy part-time, I asked my star student to write an answer to the question "Am I responsible for what I do in my dreams?" She came back the next week with a wonderful essay distinguishing three senses of the word "I" – the everyday sense (that is, the day-shift self), the dream actor, and the dream observer. She pointed out that the dream actor often acted irresponsibly relative to the day self, while the dream observer was often deficient in reasoning power. Skip the rest – I gave her an alpha for the essay.

The multiplicity of selves is a natural outcome of Dan Dennett's theory of the self. Since Dan is America's greatest living philosopher and also a keen student of neuroscience, I hope you'll agree that his view is worth taking seriously. Let me cite my own summary of his view (adapted from the comment dated January 2, 8:05 am in the previous Harris thread):

A self, as Dan Dennett sees it, is a construction of the brain. We make selves for ourselves (so to speak) to put our thoughts into better order. Each of us builds our own autobiography to sort out our memories, as an ongoing drama starring our own self. That is, Dan thinks we create ourselves as something like fictional characters within our own stories, and we do this for deeply rooted biological reasons. We create multiple drafts of this story, each with its own version of the self. Dan thinks the self is like a virtual machine, which is to say an emulation, like a virtual Windows machine running on a Mac. The parallelism of the brain supports a serial virtual machine, which he calls a Joycean virtual machine because it generates a stream of consciousness using words, like the fictional character Nora Bloom in James Joyce's novel Ulysses. For Dan, a human self is spun from words like a spider's web is spun from silk.

By the way, I checked a longer 2002 version of this description with Dan himself and he had no objection. But read his big book "Explaining Consciousness" for the full story.

Said JWR, alias NavyNukeCdr:
After reading some of the posts here by members of the Islamic faith ... I'm not entirely convinced that holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" works with some of the more vicious interpreters of the Koran.
(January 16, 2007 5:31 AM)

Sir, I like your thinking, not just in this quote but in your longer comment. I'm mightily relieved that America's nukes are in the hands of people like you. If you were running for Congress and I were allowed to vote for you, I would.

Said Kate:
Dreams ... it could be that dreams are nothing but the old coffee grinds of the used-up day ... when people dismiss or scoff at dreams, well, I too at the end of day throw away the old coffee grounds. But many of us throw those grounds onto the compost pile ... for life can grow from them.
(January 16, 2007 10:54 AM)

Indeed. See my comments above. A theory can grow from them.

Said Timmy:
What about recurring dreams? ... I will forever be freaked out by this dream that I had maybe a hundred times before I saw it happen on live TV.
(January 16, 2007 1:45 PM)

Indeed. See my comments above. An emotive future event throws its shadow back onto your mind while it is dreaming. This would be an example of the mind working in prophetic mode. Spooky action at a distance!

Gad,

You said:
"Nope, but I prefer that mystery over being designed by a designer"

You say prefer like you have a choice as to what you want to be. And whenever you say designer you refer to it as him. Perhaps another larger intelligent universe created ours.
And who says the designer has to have no beginning, or designer of it's own.
We currently have computers that design things. And those computers have a designer. And for all we know, we had a designer. And our designer could have a designer. Perhaps it designers all the way down.

I'm not saying we have a designer. I'm just pointing out the interesting fact that the human mind can not comprehend the other options as easily as it can comprehend design. And I'm suggesting that this has much to do with our problem of religion.

I love the mystery myself. I do not require an answer to enjoy my life to the fullest. But I love to think about it. And I certainly won't dismiss the designer option just because I don't like it.

Everything we know in the universe has a beginning. The sun, the planets, life. It was all created at some point that we can determine going all the way back to the big bang.
All of these things were created. We know that.
By what? By the universe itself it seems. Or at least that's all that we know so far.
So if this planet has an origin, and the sun has an origin, and the galaxy has an origin, how can we not assume that the universe itself has an origin. We know that the big bang is the first thing that we know of. But we still don't know the origin of the universe. Did it exist in some other form before the big bang? Or was the big bang the creation. And by what? And why?

It's a mystery that I love, and all options are on the table. I will most likely die not knowing. But for the future generations, I wonder what incredible things they might discover that might give some indication.

Anonymous (Annoying Most?)
I took philosophy courses in college. They were not my favorites. To examine *my* life, all I need is a philosophy of my own, I don't need to know every other possible way of thinking, particularly when it is completely subjective.

I agree that study is a good thing, generally speaking, but the world encompasses too much knowledge for all of us to be experts in every possible field - we go where our interests lead.

Sorry, but theology, to me, is a joke. Why not leprechaunology? Dragonology? Unicornology?

I'm a bit tired of your insulting style of writing and your implication that I lack intelligence (I'll stand my IQ against yours any day of the week) so this is the last time I'll respond to one of your posts.

Timmy, nice discussion seeds. You asked,
"Homo Sapiens have been around for at least 250,000 years now. (correct me if I'm wrong about that)
We seem to be about due?
For What?
Evolution.
Into what?
Homo Erectus - Neanderthal - Homo Sapien - ?
What's next for us, evolution wise."

The continuing discovery of fossil evidence tends to keep pushing the dates back, since recent fossils are easier to find than older ones. It could be much older. Some experts are suggesting well over a million years. Hard to draw the line on a continuum.
I read somewhere that the average life span of any species is between one and two million years. A few last far longer, and many last far less. So it could be that what we're due for is extinction.
Big brains have appeared in only one brief period in all the earth's billions of years, and there were at least six big brained primate species around at the same time. Only we and the "dumber" primates have survived. The jury is still out on whether big brains is a good idea in evolutionary terms. Lately it doesn't look so promising.

Remember evolution isn't "going" anywhere; there's no train track laid down in front of the train. We're just the descendants of the best survivors of the past. Life is making it up as it goes along.

Timmy, nice thought seeds.
"Homo Sapiens have been around for at least 250,000 years now. (correct me if I'm wrong about that)
We seem to be about due?
For What?
Evolution.
Into what?
Homo Erectus - Neanderthal - Homo Sapien - ?
What's next for us, evolution wise."

The continuing discovery of fossil evidence tends to keep pushing the dates back, since recent fossils are easier to find than older ones. It could be much older. Some experts are suggesting well over a million years. Hard to draw the line on a continuum.
I read somewhere that the average life span of any species is between one and two million years. A few last far longer, and many last far less. So it could be that what we're due for is extinction.
Big brains have appeared in only one brief period in all the earth's billions of years, and there were at least six big brained primate species around at the same time. Only we and the "dumber" primates have survived. The jury is still out on whether big brains is a good idea in evolutionary terms. Lately it doesn't look so promising.

Remember evolution isn't "going" anywhere; there's no train track laid down in front of the train. We're just the descendants of the best survivors of the past. Life is making it up as it goes along.

Gad, Re "My question is this, the idea of being designed is completely repugnant to me, why would anyone want to be designed, what is the appeal of being designed?"

I think that for a lot of people, the idea of being designed is appealing because if they were designed, there must be a designer. And if there's a designer, maybe it's looking out for them and has a plan for them after they die. Maybe there's a way for their lives and the lives of their loved ones to continue and for them to be reunited in a paradisial afterlife.

I can't say that I mind that idea myself. I just wish that there was some good evidence for it and that I could believe it! For me, believing something just because I want it to be true is not an option.

Timmy,

"Are you able to wrap your head around time having no beginning?Or sudden existence for no reason out of nothingness?"

Nope, but I prefer that mystery over being designed by a designer....... I don't see that a designer who had no beginning and whose existence came from nothingness makes it any easier to wrap ones head around these ideas. Well,other then just putting the burden of the mystery on the designer, so one doesn't have to think about it, problem solved

Gad,

It's certainly not about wanting to be designed, for me.
Although I don't find the thought repugnant.
But there is no question about the fact that we are (like it or not) a creature that can't help but wonder about it's origin.

Are you able to wrap your head around time having no beginning?
Or sudden existence for no reason out of nothingness?

I don't know what I should imagine. I don't have any control over it. I imagine what I imagine. Time having no beginning and sudden existence of the universe are the hardest things for me to imagine.

Wether I like it or not, creation is the only thing that I find easy to imagine. On how, what or why? Now it's getting difficult again.

Kate, thanks for your persistence.
Your post at 10:54 AM is much like my own dreams, kind of fragmented like an unfinished jigsaw puzzle, with ideas and their counter-ideas floating around in equal measure. Your effort to cultivate them is interesting, and it sounds as though you have had some progress. Progress toward what end I'm not clear on. Could you help with that?
So as I said before, we have a confident shrug of the shoulders about what dreams are and what they're for, if anything. Everything from "the Royal Road to the Unconscious" as Freud said, to a random flushing away of useless junk at the end of the day. The existence/nature/purpose of the unconscious is still up for grabs, with not much convincingly proven or disproven. We're even still scratching our heads (or banging our heads) over the conscious, much less the unconscious.
I used to think that our unconscious is as old as life, and our conscious is only as old as we individuals are, so the unconscious possesses a great wisdom. That's about as close to believing in a god as I ever got. It's a very romantic notion, and lately I've come to question all my romantic notions, but yet without a conclusion. So a both nod of my head and a shrug of my shoulders to you.

Here are a couple of other things that I like to think about with fascination. I'm looking for others to comment.

We use only 10% of our brain.
To me this is one of the most fascinating and exciting things to think about. What if we found a way to use 15%, or 45%?
What could we do with all of this extra brain power?
So much mystery to that for me.

And here's another one.
Homo Sapiens have been around for at least 250,000 years now. (correct me if I'm wrong about that)
We seem to be about due?
For What?
Evolution.
Into what?
Homo Erectus - Neanderthal - Homo Sapien - ?
What's next for us, evolution wise.

Perhaps a creature that uses 28% of it's brain as opposed to 10%?

What ever it is, I think it will be bald, and maybe even blind.
Be on the lookout.

Or have we subverted natural selection with our science and medicine?

Some thought starters for this week?

Timmy,

Traveling on business (response delayed), but wanted to give my $.02 on your question of "why are we here" and "what does it all mean".

"why are we here" and "what does it all mean", I don't know. More then that I posit that we can never know, with one exception, "if" we were designed for a purpose "and" the designer tells what that purpose is. To put it another way, if there is "no" designer we can never know "why are we here" and "what does it all mean".......I think this makes logical sense, how could could we ever know without being told, and only a designer would have the answer if there was one.

I do not believe in a designer, but if we suppose there is one, my first question would be who designed the designer. If the answer is the designer just "is" and will always be, then why can't the universe just be an "is" and will always be. I would prefer that over being designed by any designer, good or bad, but especially a cruel vindictive one.

My question is this, the idea of being designed is completely repugnant to me, why would anyone want to be designed, what is the appeal of being designed?

More questions about dreams:

What about recurring dreams?
from the time I was about 19, I began having a recurring dream. This is very scary to me. I worked in a tall office building Toronto, Canada around that time. My dream was that I was walking from the subway to work and just as I got close to my office tower I look up to see a jumbo jet sized plane fly right into the office tower. Sometimes the dream would end there, but often it continued on as I helped as best I could to rescue people from the burning building. The first time I had this dream was in 1987. I had it at least 50 to 100 more times over the next 14 years. Maybe more. It was extremely vivid. I have not had this dream since September 11, 2001.

I will forever be freaked out by this dream that I had maybe a hundred times before I saw it happen on live TV. Anyone care to take a stab at explaining that one? Very creepy and disconcerting.

I have other recurring dreams that are much more abstract, but the same every time. These are the dreams that really freak me out.

Anyone else?
Recurring dreams?

Anonymous,

Yes. We certainly do have access to "the most vile material of every description".
That's a good thing isn't it? Not because the stuff is vile, but because censorship is draconian and wrong. Do you disagree?

Navy Nuke just said that they're trying, not that they're succeeding. We would have to resort to much more drastic measures if they were succeeding.

The point NavyNuke was making is that there are many Christian leaders like the Gerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons who fight a constant battle to force their Bible morals on the rest of us through government policy. And if not for people like me and NavyNuke and others speaking up about such things, they would be winning that misguided battle, because their brainwashed flock are fine with religious leaders telling them what to think on issues of morality. It seems as though most of them don't know what moral is until Gerry Falwell speaks.

Thank goodness that we have overcome most of this "moral authority" through the word of God crap. We still have some ways to go, but we are definitely winning this battle.

Thank God.
(God in this case means Eric Clapton)
Just so there's no confusion.

Ahem.

Back to one of our threads: Dreams

When the ego disappears, and the ___________ (fill in the blank) steps into that vacuum, we have what we call dreams ... as opposed to ego's daytime conversations and monoglogues (whether with others or itself).

Set aside mental illness or drugs.

Back then to dreams.

Because I so enjoy them, collect them, work with them, I have taught myself to remember them. My memoir is rife with them, as others would speak daytime happenings that "made all the difference" to paths they took (and I certainly make use of those too).

I, like others, have developed my own dream language with its own symbology. I have dreams in a series. I have personal and collective dreams. I've broken their code ... most times.

That part of me that dreams (please name it--brain, unconscious,...) is brilliant. It will let come to the surface what ego buries. It stages plays every night: characters with scripts, costumes, props, plot.

I'm going to stop now.

And it could be that dreams are nothing but the old coffee grinds of the used-up day that I have cleverly brought my knowledge of myself and an open mind to see meanings, connections, possibilities that my daytime intelligence missed.

For example, you can read all the horoscopes of a day and make all of them apply to you because you know yourself so well. Thus you can discount any of them as being relevant. (You can discount them on many scores ... this is just a quick example.)

And so I know that's what I may do with dreams (i.e. , I place meaning where there is none.)So when people dismiss or scoff at dreams, well, I too at the end of day throw away the old coffee grounds.

But many of us throw those grounds onto the compost pile ... for life can grow from them.

Kate, struggling for words and w/out her first cup of coffee on a freezing mountain morning.

Well, Anon., there is that creepy business with the true geological age of the Grand Canyon(for some reason the US Geological Service isn't allowed to sell books in the Grand Canyon gift shop that include the Canyon's estimated age).
I wish I had time right now to find that link for you, but someone did bring it up in one of these Sam Harris threads. Sorry for the redundancy if you've heard this before.

NavynukeCDR objects to those who would "try to ban books and movies that I (as a grown man) should decide for myself whether I will read or watch."

Notwithstanding the creeping theocracy his febrile imagination tells him is upon us, perhaps he can cite an example or two of any *serious* incidents along these lines in the US of A over the past four decades?

And even if he can, surely he acknowledges the obvious fact that he enjoys unfettered access to the most vile material of every description to a degree that would have been utterly unimaginable even two decades ago — notwithstanding said creeping theocracy?

As I said, I had hoped you would've corrected me if I was wrong in assuming the worst.

I see now, I had not read back far enough in the thread to understand how the statement originated.

For any misunderstanding I apologize.

And yes, I totally agree that there is nothing praiseworthy in dismissing formal study.

My comment was based on the worthiness of life.

Robin,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my earlier post. I regret the unintended implication that I was commenting on the quality of anyone's life, or devaluing lived experience, or unreasonably exalting formal knowledge and education. I wasn't.

I was responding to a post that explicitly dismissed the study of philosophy, and questioned what philosophy has to do with an "examined life". Since the latter is a classic definition of philosophy (from Socrates' defense at his trial), I could not but point out the irony. And while I agree completely that formal study is not the only path to knowledge, at the same time I hope you'll agree that there is nothing praiseworthy in simply dismissing it.

Hello again,

After reading some of the posts here by members of the Islamic faith (and those others who, like seemingly everyone else, wish to pin the blame for all the worlds troubles on the USA)...I thought I'd post this also. This is my response on amazon.com to a comment about "The End of Faith". As you can see, I'm not entirely convinced that holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" works with some of the more vicious interpreters of the Koran...

JWR
============================================

I am constantly amazed at the apologists -- religous and otherwise -- for the evils committed in the name of the Islamic faith. Seems like the same people that, back in the 50's thru the 80's were willing to be apologists for every evil committed under the Soviet Union....and today are willing to overlook the evils committed by North Korea, China,, and Cuba on their way to march at Guantanamo Bay -- are the same people willing to overlook the atrocities committed daily in the name of Islam. By the way -- where were these people when American airmen were being imprisoned in Hanoi under much more horrific conditions??) One of the points Mr. Harris made in his marvelous (and long overdue) book was that the Muslims carrying out many of the suicide attacks are educated (by conventional standards) men -- architects and engineers willing to perish for an invisible God. Many of the problems in today's world come about because far too many of us fear to honestly and openly address the issues that Mr. Harris raises.

Mr. Goldstein, if modern-day Islam ISN'T the largest threat to peace in the world (along with the other literalist interpreters of various
religious texts), then perhaps you can explain to those of us not quite as enlightened as you the common thread for the following events... while you're at it, perhaps you can also explain to us how well the policy of appeasement worked with similarly irrational men back in 1938:

a. 9-11-2001; 3-11-2003; 7-7-2005; 10-12-2000 (i.e. the USS COLE); the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, the attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the attack on the WTC in 1993....

b. the practice of 'honor killings', where sisters and daughters must be killed because of the 'shame' brought on the family after being raped..

c. the violent riots that erupted in many Arab cities after cartoons (let me repeat that, cartoons) were published in Danish newspapers --
these same countries where vile cartoons are published regularly about those that practice the Jewish faith and citizens of non-theocratic nations like the USA. (Remember, this is Denmark -- i.e. a country where, if you decide to move there, the practice of freedom of speech is supposed to be respected..) I don't think we saw too many Christians (even the fundamentalist lunatics like I grew up around that handle rattlesnakes and think dinosaurs roamed the earth 6000 years ago) rioting after the Mapplethorp exhibits of "Piss Christ" or the similar issue in Brooklyn a few years back with elephant dung on the Virgin Mary -- people were upset that their tax dollars were used to subsidize this 'art' but no one got killed....

d. What was the religion of the men that killed the Dutch filmmaker Van Gogh for his transgressions'?

e. The leaders of what religious faith issued a 'fatwa' against Salman Rushdie for his 'blasphemy' of...writing a book? I don't recall too many leaders of this same religion standing up for freedom of speech...could it be because they were afraid, or because they agreed with the fatwa...or both?

f. In Afghanistan, the Taliban (which religion did they represent?) forbade the education of females under penalty of death (which they
enforced from time to time)...and would still be doing so if it weren't for a certain country that has aircraft carriers. Do you honestly think diplomacy would work with people that have beheadings as halftime entertainment?

g. Would you hold to your pacifist ideals if, say, your son or daughter or wife was a cartoonist or filmmaker and was threatened by others simply because she dared 'blaspheme'. Should the USA have NOT struck back against the ideology that says blowing others up in the name of religious faith is a good thing? What about the Tiananmen square massacre from 1989....how well did diplomacy work then? Germany, 1938? Japan, 1931? Diplomacy only worked against the USSR because it was backed up by credible firepower. Just ask Hungarians circa 1956 how well the Soviets respected peace....or you could check with the Czechs (no pun intended) circa 1968....have you learned nothing from history, sir?

h. care to comment on the hypocrisy surrounding the death of Saddam Hussein? By that I mean how these same Islamic fundamentalist leaders couldn't be bothered to intervene as he was subjecting hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to chemical agents or torturing them in his jails or secret prisons...or starting a war with Iran..or ignoring 17 consecutive UN Security Council resolutions....but let him be hanged for crimes against humanity after being tried by an Iraqi government that the US-led invasion helped to bring to life and let the crying and moaning about the infidels begin...

i. Finally, where would YOU, personally, rather live -- in a secular nation like the USA (yes, I know about the religous right and the
hypocrisy and the way the Catholic church protected the priests over the kids -- all points made in Mr. Harris' excellent book...and by the way did you agree with his subsequent book "Letter to a Christian Nation"?) or, would you prefer to live in, say, Saudi Arabia or the areas of Pakistan under Taliban control? Seems to me the overarching theme of this book was the need to confront members of all faiths regarding their irrationality and how they are basing their reality (and forcing their version of reality on the rest of us) on centuries-old texts that fly in the face of the accumulated weight of scientific scholarship. I don't care if you believe that a man flew to heaven on a winged horse...it's when you wish to kill me or others like be simply because we don't subscribe to the same ridiculous dogma that I have a problem. I don't care if you believe that you can handle rattlesnakes and speak in tongues -- it's when you want to teach creationism in a public school...or think 'abstinence-only' sex-ed is a realistic approach...or try to ban books and movies that I (as a grown man) should decide for myself whether I will read or watch -- that I have a problem with you. As Mr. Harris describes, for too long we have remained silent in the advance of irrational, fundamentalist dogma worldwide -- the most visible and violent of which, by far, is fundamentalism as practiced by those of the Islamic faith. Have you heard any major Islamic religous leader or politician in a majority-Islamic country condemn the actions of the Taliban? Condemn the fatwa against Salman Rushdie? Condemn the riots? That's the issue, sir.

Certainly when one of our 'fine' Christian leaders (such as the Robertson/Falwell/Dobson legion of doom) makes a boneheaded statement they get justifiably ripped by the secular media in the West and by at least Left-leaning politicians...do you see the same treatment in the Islamic world? The answer is, clearly, no -- and until free-thinkers in those countries (and elsewhere in the world) have the courage to tell
the proverbial emperors they have no clothes liberty and freedom will continue to wither unless brought at the cost of American lives.

Mr. Goldstein, you either missed the overall point of the book, or you are deliberately trying to obscure the point in order to advance your own agenda. For others out there, I can't recommend his two books or Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" strongly enough.

The last post of mine is follow up to Anonymous.

Going to bed now, been up way to long as it is more than showing by my sparatic ramblings.

Now that I totally agree with you on. And if I misunderstood what you meant before. Please correct me on it.

All I meant to say in that very long post was that through my adversities in life along with the struggle came the rewards.

My life wasn't charmed and still isn't by most peoples standards. But I choose to find the positives. Not by ignoring the negatives but by learning from them and about them.

I just didn't feel the need to pick up a book of philosophy to try and understand my purpose here.

I still don't know what my purpose is. Maybe I never will. And don't think that my adversities were ever so slight that my world wasn't rocked. It was, more times than enough.

But wisdom, comes with age. Knowing whats really important and whats not. To appreciate the strength it takes to look adversity in the face and keep on going even when everything inside you doesn't want to. But you wake up another day and your another day stronger.

Hello everyone,

New to this board...was asked to post my comments from another Sam Harris-begun thread elsewhere on this site to this thread. As expected Mr. Jason Bradfield disputed many of my comments; his response and my counter-battery fire are included in this post. Lengthy, but I hope you find it entertaining and thought-provoking.

==================================================
**** ORIGINAL POST ****

I'm new to the debate, but I must say I find it interesting...and long overdue.

Background -- I grew up Southern Baptist. Never really felt a connection to the church, though. Earned a civil engineering undergrad degree and a Master's in industrial engineering. Currently a deployed active-duty US Navy officer, with a specialty in running carrier nuclear power plants.

After the debates in TIME, I recently purchased both of Sam Harris' books, as well as "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and the book on Thestic Evolution (BioLogos) by Francis Collins (forget the name right now). All thought-provoking books.

Politically -- these books and the arguments they are making are long overdue. I am fed up with the fundamentalists attempting to make decisions for other adults -- especially in a country that was founded on the separation of church and state as one of its guiding principles. I am a grown man, I can decide on my own what to watch, what to worship (if anything), what to drink, what to eat, what books I should read, what movies I should watch...I don't need anyone else to make that decision for me. I am fed up with the fundamentalists who completely ignore scientific discoveries and proof (Fortunately, Francis Collins does not do this.) in an attempt to convince others (using our tax dollars) that the earth is 6000 years old, that the universe was created in less than a week, that Adam was created from dust (by the way...did Cain marry his sister?). I have had it with politicians who think that somehow my marriage (to a beautiful woman) is threatened by what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I am fed up with the Catholic hierarchy that feels it is more important to protect the priests rather than the children they molested. I am amazed that we (in the Western world) continue to cave in (worldwide) to the Muslim fundamentalists whom are very clear on their aims to create an Islamic caliphate via the sword, gun, etc. I am tired of the apologists for the tremendous atrocities of fundamentalist Muslims -- especially the Taliban. I could go on for hours..fortunately, however, Sam Harris addresses much of these issues in his books. I was pleased to see that he did not (as I expected) take the 'wacko Left' POV so prevalent (i.e. the current Administration is responsible for every evil in the world..) and instead looked at the issues from a neutral point of view and criticized idiotic behavior at all ends of the political spectrum. What a refreshing change -- instead of agreeing (no matter what) with one political party or the other, he applies a uniform standard. Bravo!

In terms of the existence (or non-existance) of God/The Creator...I have to say that...I guess for me the answer (or Answer) is that I don't know for sure. I certainly don't agree with the literal reading of the Bible -- I don't see how anyone reasonable could. I can't believe I live in a country where people actually believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I can't believe I live in a country where people actually allow children to die while 'praying' for them to get better rather than get medical treatment. I agree that the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, as is the scientific evidence for the creation of the universe, etc. However....it seems to me to strain credulity to consider that every ounce of matter in the universe was at one time (at the instant of the Big Bang) confined to an infinitely dense singularity less than the size of the head of a pin. Perhaps it's my feeble mind, but I just can't see how the mass of the earth could be compressed to such a degree....and the earth is a grain of sand compared to the Sun...which itself is a grain of sand in the Milky Way...which is one of millions of galaxies. Furthermore...dark matter? Dark energy? I know that once we get down to the atomic level and quantum mechanics the Newtonian world is left behind...and in the realm of sub-atomic particles (quarks, muons, mesons, etc) all common sense departs....but I just can't buy into this invisible 'dark matter'. Also, how can science explain Beethoven....or AC/DC...or U2...or Guns N' Roses (the 1987 version)...or Shakespeare...or the Sistine Chapel...or the sculpture of David? Also...Something had to have created the universe...right? Who or What created the atoms that make us up? Who designed the atoms to work like they do and to form molecules? For instance...what a fabulous invention water is. Combine the two gases Hydrogen and Oxygen to get....a liquid (at room temperature and pressure. By the way, Jason, pure water always boils at 212F/100C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Raise the pressure -- raise the boiling point -- such as in a pressurized-water reactor plant. Lower the pressure, lower the boiling point -- as in a typical shipboard distilling unit. You really should acquire some knowledge of science before speaking of scientific or engineering issues....else you run the risk of coming across as a buggering fool. While we're at it, Jason -- since you seem to know so much about why God designed the natural universe to work the way He did - care to enlighten the rest of us on why God chose the model of the atom that he did? Why do electrons only occupy quantized energy states, for instance? Why did God design elements to fit the periodic table like He did? Why is the speed of light only 186,000 miles per second? Why not 500 million miles per second? 700 billion miles per second? Also...if God designed and allowed marijuana and opium plants to bloom, He must have had a reason for doing so, right? So why the opposition to them? If God created us all (or caused us to be created) -- why the unreasonable hatred of homosexuals? Aren't they children of God also? I didn't 'choose' to be attracted to women -- I simply AM attracted to women. Do you think that homosexual men honestly 'choose' to be attracted to other men? I don't understand why they do it (not with women like Kate Beckinsale, Ashley Judd, Linda Stouffer (of CNN), Scarlett Johannson, and practically every Italian woman around), but it doesn't affect my life or marriage in the slightest. Also (as Sam Harris states) why would an omniscient, omnipowerful God allow a child to be abducted and raped? If you know so much about God, Jason, then please enlighten the rest of us poor mortals...

At the same time, ...why did God reveal himself 2000 years ago regularly...but not now, in the era of instant communication? Surely, if God appeared in the noon sky of NYC...or at a Presidential news conference for all of us to see and be in awe of, then there would be no doubt. So why doesn't He appear that way? Also...according to the Christian faith...a deathbed conversion to Christianity (by, let's say, Stalin) would wipe out a lifetime of causing agony for millions ofothers, whereas someone that might have led a conventionally 'moral' life (helping the poor, building houses for Habitat for Humanity, feeding the homeless) but that was a Buddhist or Hindu would be condemned for an eternity in Hell. (Eternity is a long time....think of a trillion years to the trillionth power. Still not a drop in the bucket compared to Eternity.) What kind of a God would allow something like that to happen? Why wouldn't He at least come forth and remove all doubt of His existence?

I don't mind saying that it is difficult for me to resolve the issues above in a neat, coherent package. I don't know that we can ever know this side of death. Is the soul a product merely of brain synapse firing...or is it Divinely granted. I can't say. What I can say is that I agree most strongly with Sam Harris -- it is long overdue for religion to once again be a private matter and be kept out of public policy. Religous fundamentalism and intolerence is by far the biggest threat to world peace -- most notably by those that practice Islam. Until our politicians (worldwide) have the courage to state this and take the lead on this, then we will continue to careen ever closer to the abyss.

thanks for everyone's time. Look forward to the debate.
==================================================
**** Mr. Jason Bradfield's rebuttal ****

Navynukecdr,
I’m not sure what the “debate” is here because you haven’t really said anything of value other than whine about stuff you don’t like. I can play that game too.

I’m fed up with queers running around telling me that sticking their you know what up each other’s b-hole is a “natural” given and parading that around downtowns and insisting I honor it. I’m fed up with ignoramuses who argue that homosexuality is just some “private” issue that hasn’t had any effect on others. (See “Power in the Blood” by David Chilton to forever dispel that myth) I’m fed up with scientists who on the one hand argue that science produces no “certainties” yet tell us that anyone who denies the certainty of evolution is an idiot. (Dawkins) I’m fed up with the fact a great number of kids go through 12 years of public high school and are taught empiricism from every corner and never offered an alternative theory of knowledge such as Christian rationalism. Your tax dollars were NOT used to teach me creationism as an alternative but evolution and the big bust theory, so what the heck are you whining about? I’m fed up with atheists who complain Christians not being “rational”, “logical” people but then turn right around and tell me that the law of contradiction is a law we can take or leave. I’m fed up with people who bring up crimes that Christians have committed to use as some proof against the truth of the Bible. (again, arguments by those who say they are “rational”) I’m fed up with morons who tell me that no one with any sense would believe the Bible and then turn right around and say, “but I have no idea how we got here.” I’m fed up with people who INSIST on the certainty of evolution yet can not produce ONE transitory fossil. I’m fed up with morons who think that asking a ton of questions somehow constitutes a valid argument against a position. I’m fed up with morons who instead of asking Christians like me what I think about the legalization of marijuana ASSume to think that I oppose it like other Christians they have met and then proceed from there to argue some ridiculous point with another stupid question.

See Navynukecdr, two can play this game. I have a better idea.

How about scrolling up to the top of the page and addressing the five points I raised.

1. Observation is unreliable

2. All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

3. Science commits the fallacy of induction

4. Equations are always selected, they are never discovered.

5. All scientific laws describe ideal situations.

In fact, I’ll make it even easier on you; let’s just start with point 1.

1. Observation is unreliable

Do you believe that observation is reliable?

jason bradfield:
oh, and one last thing...i find these comments hilarious:

"I am a grown man, I can decide on my own what to watch, what to worship (if anything), what to drink, what to eat, what books I should read, what movies I should watch...I don't need anyone else to make that decision for me."

then:

"why would an omniscient, omnipowerful God allow a child to be abducted and raped? What kind of a God would allow something like that to happen?"

hmmmm...so that's how it works...Your life is not open for criticism yet you're going to proceed to tell me i am an idiot for believing the Bible and force evolution down my throat and then tell God how to run His biz with your ignorant rhetorical questions...

oootttaayyyy.
==================================================
*** My counterbattery fire to Mr. Bradfield ****

Well, well, if it isn't Mr. Bradfield...

Before we start, you should know that I'm not a scientist, I'm an engineer. Slight difference, easily misconstrued by the untutored layman. I suppose I should be grateful you didn't question my patriotism as well...
--------------------------------------------------
Part 1 -- where I attempt to answer your questions

As to whether observation is unreliable, it depends...on the frame of reference (are we talking Newtonian or at the subatomic/quantum level) and who or what is doing the observing. Fallible human beings are notoriously unreliable and 'unrepeatable'....however, a calibrated instrument (such as an ammeter, voltmeter, electron microscope, etc) are reliable when used as designed and can give repeatable measurements.

Now..."equations are always selected, they are never discovered." Let's take a simple example: Ohm's Law. V = IR... or voltage equals current times resistance. That law was deduced via scientific experiment and deductive reasoning....it wasn't just plucked out of thin air. And it can be repeated and confirmed independently. Take a constant voltage, apply it across varying resistors, and measure the currents. Plot the results to verify. More complex examples would be the laws governing electromagnetism and gravitation.

And no, scientific laws do not just apply only in 'ideal' situations. For example -- the law of gravity. You're not suspended in mid-air, right? There are, however, issues to account for when not in a laboratory -- frictional losses, internal resistance of a cable, inertia required to get a prime mover going, and the like.
--------------------------------------------------
Part 2 -- where I address the issues you raise

I thought I made it quite clear that I don't buy completely into the argument that there is no Creator, and that I still have some other questions -- where did all this matter come from? Who/What designed the atom? (We know how...but why?) What caused the Big Bang (i.e. why did the singularity explode to create the Universe?) I freely admit I don't have the answer, and I wonder if we will ever have the answers. Nevertheless, I thought the overarching point of my post was my agreement with Mr. Harris and Mr. Dawkins on the need to remove religion from the public, tax-financed sphere and move it back to the realm of private matters. I recognize that the Founding Fathers were (at least publicly) "God-fearing" men; yet (to me at least) the meaning of the Constitution is clear -- separation of church and state. Would you prefer we live in a theocracy? If so, who would be the supreme arbiter of truth?

And, au contraire, my life is extremely open to criticism. Professionally, that's why we have peer-reviewed publications, open scientific forums for other subject-matter experts to look for flaws, etc. As for the private sphere -- there are legitimate laws that exist to protect others from the consequences of irresponsible behavior -- I can't, for example, take my Glock out to my front yard and fire it in the air or at my tree. And, of course, the example from Missouri (of the abducted boys) make it clear that there is behavior that even in the privacy of homes is intolerable and the will of the people and power of the state as carried out by the police will intervene. However, it is the private behavior of consenting adults that is the issue I raised. Just as it is not my business how you choose to worship or who you choose to marry or what books you choose to read (or not read) in your home I don't see how it's your business to tell this grown man what I should or should not do in my home. I can't see how what the actions of two consenting adult men in Peoria or two consenting adult women in Phoenix have to do with my marriage to my wife. And, no, I don't want to see two men or two women making out in public -- I'd tell them to 'get a room', just like I would a heterosexual couple.

Do you understand the term "theory" when it applies to science and engineering? You are confusing it with its more colloquial usage by the general public to mean "an untested idea or opinion". In the scientific realm, however, "theory" refers to a well-established and verifiable explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena. Big difference. "Christian rationalism" is not a 'theory' in this sense. If you believe that Christ was resurrected and that He walked on water because the Bible says so....ok, that's your prerogative, but don't try to pass it off as scientific proof. Same thing with creationism. That's why us "secularists" don't want these items discussed in public school science classes using tax dollars -- they aren't even remotely 'science'. If you want to pull your children out of school and home-school them or put them in a Christian school -- again, that's your prerogative. My stepdaughter was pulled out of the public school and put in a Catholic one, in fact -- not because of religion, mind you, but because the public school lacked discipline and accountablity...but that's another topic for another day.

And, finally, I didn't ".. tell God how to run His biz with your ignorant rhetorical questions..". Unlike some, I don't claim to understand the mind of the Creator of the universe. I was simply asking the question as to why an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God (as Christians claim) would allow this to happen?
--------------------------------------------------Part 3 -- where I re-ask my questions.

Care to enlighten the rest of us on why God chose the model of the atom that he did? Why do electrons only occupy quantized energy states, for instance?

Why did God design elements to fit the periodic table like He did?

Why is the speed of light only 186,000 miles per second? Why not 500 million miles per second? 700 billion miles per second?

If God created us all (or caused us to be created) -- why the unreasonable hatred of homosexuals? Aren't they children of God also?

Why did God reveal himself 2000 years ago regularly...but not now, in the era of instant communication?

Also...according to the Christian faith...a deathbed conversion to Christianity (by, let's say, Stalin) would wipe out a lifetime of causing agony for millions of others, whereas someone that might have led a conventionally 'moral' life (helping the poor, building houses for Habitat for Humanity, feeding the homeless) but that was a Buddhist or Hindu would be condemned for an eternity in Hell. What kind of a God would allow something like that to happen? Why wouldn't He at least come forth and remove all doubt of His existence?

and some new ones:

Do you believe that military members should swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...or should we be swearing an oath to something else?

Do you believe that Muslims, Jews, etc should be able to practice the religion of their choice as they see fit in the privacy of their homes or places of worship in the US?

If all things come from God -- then why the opposition (if not from you, from so many fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and members of all religions) to opium plants, coca plants, and marijuana plants. Don't they serve a purpose (morphine for pain, marijuana for cancer victims)?
(And, no, never done them -- very incompatable with military service -- my biggest vice is Sam Adams...and a little blackjack on the side.)

Have you ever taken a math class at the level of college trigonometry or above? College-level physics? Any engineering classes at all? I can say I've read the Bible (some of it -- like Psalm 23 -- is incredibly beautiful); have you ever dipped a toe into the realm of the scientist or engineer and explore the majesty of science?

Time to go, duty calls....looking forward to your erudite response...

JWR

So sorry! I meant...all the pot I smoked back in the day.

Not to be confused with thinking I was high when I wrote that. Nope not high... just illiterate.

Not everyone faces the same degree of adversity in life, and I gather from this discussion that some actually lead truly charmed lives. But most grownups encounter enough heartache and disillusionment that questions of meaning and purpose are unavoidable, and shrugging them off is not a very satisfying response. That's not to say we should expect a definitive answer in this life — it's just that struggling to ignore the questions is more painful than acknowledging the contingency of any "answers".

ooooops! sorry, my mistake. I got confused.

Not sure if its the lack of *book learnin* that makes me less intelligent or all that pot I smoked in the day.

Anonymous,

From Wikipedia.....Philosophy (literally 'love of wisdom') is a subject in the Western intellectual tradition that is concerned with rational inquiry into issues of knowledge (What is it to know?), being (What is?), and conduct (What is right?).

From Wikepedia....Wisdom is the ability, developed through experience, insight and reflection, to discern truth and exercise good judgment.

If in fact I am understanding you correctly when you stated that...

"Foregoing the study of philosophy makes your life 'unexamined?' How so? And doing without philosophy makes life not worth living?"

You can't have an examined life without philosophy, because that's what philosophy *is*. If you're going to have an examined life, your only choice then is to do it with or without study. I assume most intelligent people believe that study is a good thing — something that improves their skills and enhances their knowledge.

That appears to me to be a very arrogant statement of opinion.

I would agree *book-learnin* is a good thing for people that want to improve their skills and enhance their knowledge. I just don't think its *necessary* to have a life worth living.

My level of education *book-learnin* stopped at the high school level. Not something I am particualarly proud of. My level of education in *life* continues onward.

I know what my strengths are and my weaknesses. I know what kind of human being I am and what kind I strive to be. I know that I love and respect my family and friends, my animals, my garden, my love for learning new and exciting interests. When I sit out on my deck and watch the wind blow through the trees or look out my window at the snow falling, I am in awe of nature and its beauty and wonderment. I love the squeals of laughter that come from my grandchildren when they are happy. I know what its like to be hungry and I know what its like to have a full belly. I know what its like to be unemployed and I know what its like to have very good employment. I appreciate good health and have compassion for the infirmed. I know what my limitations are and what not to limit myself with.

Every moment in time of my life is another opportunity learn further (wisdom) on a life worth living.

You tell me what school of higher education and/or teaching of philosophy is gonna make my life more worthwhile?

I, my friend, have just as much wisdom of what it takes to have a fulfilling life as any educated philosophy student or god-fearing person.

Which anonymous? I'm getting the anonymi mixed up.

I agree with the other anonymous

"Foregoing the study of philosophy makes your life 'unexamined?' How so? And doing without philosophy makes life not worth living?"

You can't have an examined life without philosophy, because that's what philosophy *is*. If you're going to have an examined life, your only choice then is to do it with or without study. I assume most intelligent people believe that study is a good thing — something that improves their skills and enhances their knowledge.

"I do smoke an awful lot of pot." Believe me, we know.

Sorry, but the idea that any kind of mature productive thinking — much less intelligent dialog — about these matters can occur without at least the basic tools of philosophy and theology is just whack. It's like a five-year-old explaining neuroscience.

Hi Pam,

Pretty sure I get where you're coming from.
I don't know if the question "why" necessarily indicates that the answer would give us a purpose either.

The question for me that I often find myself trying in vain to wrap my head around is "Why is it all here?"
When I think about the big bang, I can't help but think, what was there before the big bang? The answer to this question in my mind, "why is it all here?" Can only have one of three answers as far as I can see.

The universe has always been here, in which case, time has no beginning and there may not be an answer to "why?"
This one is possible to me but very hard to wrap my head around.

The universe suddenly appeared out of nothingness.
This one is even harder to wrap my head around.
Why? How? What?

Something created it.
Don't get nervous about my sanity but this one is the easiest one to wrap my head around. I think it is for most non scientists. And I think that is why religion is so prevalent. Perhaps creation is most plausible to humans because we are such great creators ourselves. Again, I don't imagine anything like a deity as the creator. More likely another universe, or a scientist in an alternate universe. This is the thought that led to the premiss of the screenplay I just wrote.

Anyway, I don't lean toward any one of those three options. But the first two are so hard for my little brain to comprehend.

This is the great unanswered question to me. It doesn't consume my life. Thinking about it is like a hobby for me. But then, I do smoke an awful lot of pot. This might explain my mystical thoughts on the ultimate question.

I would love to know your thoughts.

That last post to Kate from Anonymous was actually from me - forgot to put my name on it.

Timmy, you wrote:
"It seems that I am even more confident than you that it's not God. I am 100% certain. But I sure as heck love to wonder about what it is? I'll drop it now. If it doesn't jazz you up to wonder about it, it doesn't."

Oh, I *do* wonder about things I mentioned - why there's something instead of nothing, and how life got started. Other things, too. But I'm never tempted to think that there is any "purpose" implied by the answers, whatever they might be. As for being less certain about the God non-factor, I leave that tiny particle of possibility open only because 100% implies absolute knowledge, which none of us can possibly have. I'm as sure as I can be without absolutely knowing. :)

By the way, I liked your post about speaking up, and your conversation on the airplane - way to go!

Hi Kate,
You wrote:

"...mystery for me is more connected with my relationship with the universe."

Again, I have a less mystical mind. We are made of atoms of elements that were born in the hearts of stars. Atoms are made of energy (at least mostly, and maybe entirely) and that energy never dies. It may be transformed, but it will always be part of the universe. That is what I see as our connection, and our only true immortality. That's as mystical as I get. :)

"Here's one for you. Dreams. I've cultivated them for years. They're absolutely full of information, and so artful.
Who or what creates them while "I" am sleeping? (I've got some ideas)"

Who? Why, *you* of course. :) Your brain never actually sleeps - it continues doing what it always does. The difference between waking and sleeping is just the sensory input. When you sleep, it's mainly turned off (a small part of your brain is still alert to things it deems of great importance or survival value). Anyway, without the filter of senses, your thoughts are free to go on flights of fancy, and they do!

Have you ever noticed that when someone happens to awaken while dreaming (and therefore remembers the dream) and decides to tell you about it, they always start with "I had the strangest dream last night..."? ALL dreams are strange, it's the nature of the beast - but all come directly from the file cabinets of your own brain.

Kate,
I'm glad you brought up dreams. It's a fun subject because anybody's guess is as good as anybody else's.

The psychological view of dreams has gone through a long, twisting evolution, and has arrived today at a very confident shrug of the shoulders. I studied a whole lot of silly stuff that psychologists wrote about dreams to get my shrink degree. I can't remember much if anything that had empirical evidence to back it up, whether it was investigating the nature of dreams themselves, or the efficacy of psychotherapy using dream analysis or journaling or a dozen other techniques. Nothing seemed to produce a better therapeutic outcome than anything else, if it was even measured at all. Almost all of it is anecdotal or idiosyncratic. A theory about dream symbolism for instance, told us a lot more about the mind of the theorist than the rest of us. He'd say a house means this, an animal means that, but it was always so culture bound and so full of assumptions it never would hold together. After decades of research, writing, arguing, it's really kind of a disappointment.
But enough about psycho stuff.
You asked,
"Who or what creates them while "I" am sleeping? (I've got some ideas)"
My immediate answer would have been you, but then I noticed that you had put quotes around the word, "I." Is there a "you" other than you? A night-shift you that takes over for the day-shift you? So I won't answer with duh, you, because you're implying something more subtle. Please tell us your ideas.

Anonymous wrote:
"Undoubtedly much of humankind sleepwalks through life without asking questions. Most intelligent people, however, are possessed of much more restless intellects, and are not content to do that. Indeed, asking questions generally is considered a hallmark of intelligence."

Hmmm, seems to me that you and I have had this conversation before. I hardly "sleepwalk" through life, and I have plenty of questions about many things, some of which I mentioned in my last post. I absolutely love learning and wish I could spend even more hours reading than I do - and that's a lot. You miss my point (deliberately?) - I don't question the "meaning" of life, because I'm convinced that it doesn't have one in that sense. That doesn't mean that individual lives can't or don't have meaning, they absolutely do, even if only to those who are living them. But life itself? No. Our Cinderella planet circling our obscure little Cinderella star in an unremarkable galaxy is just, for us, a happy little accident.

"Find God a stumbling block is one thing. But for God's sake, let's not toss out philosophy too. The unexamined life is not worth living."

Speak for yourself. If philosophy turns you on, fine, study it all you want. I'd rather think than think about thinking. Let alone be told how to think. As for your last sentence I find it completely nonsensical. Foregoing the study of philosophy makes your life "unexamined?" How so?
And doing without philosophy makes life not worth living? If you believe that, I think your head must be in a place that requires you to assume a very uncomfortable position.

I agree with E.Favorite about Timmy's suggestions. The process by which I moved over the years from Christianity to non-theist started with questioning what I was being told. The answers did not make sense. My change to non-theism took a long time and many different paths and I wasn't even that devout to begin with, so I am very aware that peoples' long held beliefs will not just melt away quickly. I have, since reading Sam's book, been following Timmy's suggestion #1 about questioning silly religious statements whenever I can. Like leaving notes in the Gideon's bibles in motel rooms that point to inconsistencies (the first page of Matthew) or to God's approval and direction of violence in the Old Testament. I recently emailed the head of an interfaith group after reading an article about a gathering they held to pray for an end to the Iraq war. I just politely asked what he thought the results would be of all that praying and whether he really believed in a deity that actively responds to prayer. He's sort of avoiding the question, but he is interested enough to have started an online dialogue with me. Small steps.

Another comment- I know that Soja has posted off, but her last series of comments (1/14 at 8:55 p.m.) demonstrated just how ingrained this type of thinking is. She actually wrote in all seriousness about what God had in mind when he created humans. She knows what God had in mind. Think about that and then look up the psychiatric definition of "delusion". I guess I should be kind and just say that she has a great imagination!

Thanks, Kate, for that link.

Thanks, E Favorite, for the tip - I was surprised to see how many atheist groups there are in my area. I'm going to check them out.

Timmy, your approach makes a lot of sense - sorry I misinterpreted you. If anyone confronts me or approaches me about religion, I will certainly be an, um, dynamic participant in the conversation. I haven't been approached by many people on this subject, though - one of the benefits of living in the S.F. Bay area, I guess. I moved recently, though, so I guess my sheltered life is going to change.

Ted Stewart

Hey, Ted, re Mysticism and Philosophy by Stace, look what I found.

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dcandmkw/spirit/wts%20-%20mp1.htm#2

I tell you the internet is like being in the Alexandrian library.

Kate

Pam,

It seems that I am even more confident than you that it's not God. I am 100% certain. But I sure as heck love to wonder about what it is?
I'll drop it now. If it doesn't jazz you up to wonder about it, it doesn't.
Some love the wonder more than others to be sure. You are the first I've ever met who didn't care about it one scrap. I appologise for thinking that it had anything to do with your imagination.
I have certainly learned a lot about all of the different kind of atheists on this thread.

The Pams,

Pam M., thanks for setting me straight. And no sooner than you did--up she pops.

Pam, yes my remarks were for you. You said you see no mystery in the diversity of life or how it came to be.

Wow! You're right! I've got to ponder my use of mystery. But my next thought was: mystery for me is more connected with my relationship with the universe.

Here's one for you. Dreams. I've cultivated them for years. They're absolutely full of information, and so artful.

Who or what creates them while "I" am sleeping? (I've got some ideas)

Anyone can jump in.

PS On-going revelations:

1. All day radio programs on the prophet Martin Luther King.

2. This evening's scripture: "Dreamgirls" at the local theatre.

Kate

The author of the original article is a pretty big atheist.
But this forum is certainly open to all.

Bud - this is a non-denominational forum

Welcome

Is this an atheist or Christian forum?

A commentator says, "Are these questions innate to all humans? Apparently not. I'm the falsification factor." And: "I'm not a big fan of the study of philosophy."

Only this commentator can describe their own experience, but it does sound anomalous.

Undoubtedly much of humankind sleepwalks through life without asking questions. Most intelligent people, however, are possessed of much more restless intellects, and are not content to do that. Indeed, asking questions generally is considered a hallmark of intelligence.

Find God a stumbling block is one thing. But for God's sake, let's not toss out philosophy too. The unexamined life is not worth living.

I too think some are confusing me with Pam Meloy. We are not the same. I'm a little confused as to which posts were directed to me. If yours was, Kate, then thanks, and yes, I've been to Taos and I love it there.

I'm pretty sure that this one from Timmy was to me:
"One conversation I would like to have with you is the 'why' question. In earlier posts, you indicated that you had never wondered "why we are here?". "What it all means?"
I am intrigued because I have never met anyone who did not. This question is always the first one to pop up in my mind when I turn to deep contemplation.
Aren't these questions innate in all humans? Aren't they the whole basis for philosophy? Plato, Socrates and all of that. Is it not all based on the unavoidable human question of 'why?'"

Right, I meant what I said. I consider that I'm here because my parents had unprotected sex on a particular day. Had they not, I would have never existed, and the world wouldn't have cared. My existence is precious to me, and I hope I'm not wrong in assuming that it's important to my family and friends, and perhaps even some more casual aquaintances, at least in some small way.

I don't think that "it all" has to have any meaning. It is because it *can* be. In a nearly infinite universe, pretty much anything that can be, will be. Like Duckphup (I think he was the one) I'm pretty certain that there is other life out there, probably including intelligent life, although it probably won't be anything like us - or anything like what you see in Star Wars. I always have to laugh at Hollywood's aliens - they so obviously evolved on Earth. :)

For it all to have "meaning" implies to me some kind of overweening intelligence (God?), and that just doesn't make any sense to me.

Are these questions innate to all humans? Apparently not. I'm the falsification factor. Are they the basis for philosophy? Maybe. I'm not a big fan of the study of philosophy. It's just the musings of a bunch of people, most of whom didn't have all the information that we now have to work with. As I said before, if I have to identify myself with a philosophy, it's naturalism, which doesn't truck with what it all means. I have elements of empiricism, and elements of rationalism, but neither one by itself seems true to me and that is what I don't like about philosophy - it tries to chop the mind into little pieces. The brain can go in many directions.

You said at one point that I must not have any imagination. Anyone who knows me would find that pretty funny. I'm an artist and a writer and I breed animals. You can't be a successful breeder unless you can imagine the perfect example of your breed.

I know a lot about evolution. It's been fascinating to me ever since I first heard of it, and I've done a great deal of reading on the subject for lo, these many years. Because of that, I see no mystery in the great diversity of life on Earth, nor in how it came to be. Beauty, yes; majesty, yes; awe at the power of something as simple as DNA, yes; mystery, no.

I can't explain the origins of the universe. I can't explain how the first amino acids to form chains began to replicate themselves (probably as RNA). We may have the answers some day, particularly to the latter, but maybe not in my lifetime. Then again, we may not. I'm OK with this, although I would *like* to know. Whatever they are, I am, based on all my prior knowledge, about 99.99999999999999999% sure they have nothing to do with God.

WM - Try googling "Atheist Meetup" - There might be one near you.

Also, I like Timmy's approach - I already find myself being much more "out there" - not provoking, but responding to provocation, which in the recent past, I would not have recognized as provocation.

Consciousness raising

Einstein's thoughts on religion in his own words:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

WM,

I'll need to clarify myself.
When I said:
"It is our responsibility to lift this taboo in every place we find it applied."
By
"Where you find the taboo applied."
I mean where ever the taboo presents itself to you. Don't go looking for a fight. But If you are having a frank discussion with a group of people at a social function with and the topic turns to the gay marriage issue or to stem cell research or even just religion in general. And you make an honest comment that causes someone to admonish you because "we don't say such things about one's religion", this is where you confront it.

When someone throws religion in your face, in the way that a smoker will carelessly let their second hand smoke drift right into your face, then:
"Be one of those annoying non smokers.... As respectfully as possible."

And when I made a list for "When confronting believers"
I never meant for the atheist to force that confrontation.

I was on a plane the other day, flying home from Christmas holiday, and the woman sitting beside me asked me if I had God?
I said "no, I don't believe in God"
She asked why not?
I said, "the question to me is, why? I can find no reason to believe in God"
She said "The Bible"
And I said that's a two thousand year old book written during a time filled with similar allegorical literature. It was written by people, and to have faith in that God, is really to have faith in the people who told you about him.
She said, "Don't you feel God? Can't you feel his love? It's in you."
I said, "I certainly do feel a lot of love inside me. But it would only be faith in the words of mortal people that would make me believe that this love comes from the God in the Bible."

The conversation didn't go much farther. We both soon realized that we were not going to change each others mind. But the important thing is that I took that conversation farther than I would have before Sam Harris. And if she was willing to continue to try and convert me, I was going to continue to try and de-convert her. Politely, and respectfully.

I was also, not too long ago, approached while walking my dogs in the park by a couple of Jehovah's. Before Sam Harris I would have politely waved them off and said, not interested. But now I am very interested. I sat down with them on a park bench and let them talk to me for as long as they wanted. And when they finished and asked me what I thought? I started talking. I watched their eyes grow wide as I very politely and respectfully preached back at them some thoughts from Einstein and Carl Sagan.

I want to be clear that I was not advocating being confrontational unless you are provoked. But when you are?
I used to see it as an annoyance. I now see it as an opportunity.

This was all I meant.
When people come in to a comedy club, it is with the understanding that the performers are not censored, all is fair game. I see this as an opportunity as well. I take full advantage as do many comics today. As I said, I feel quite fortunate to get to blab off about this more often than your average non believer.

WM, you asked:
"Are there public forums in the non-wired world for discussing religion or atheism?"
I found one. As luck would have it, it's been my place of work for the last fifteen years. Yeehaw I love my job.

Wow, the electrons were sure hopping while I was on my day of rest! So many interesting posts and additions to my reading list.

Gad, I was horrified when I read the HPV article you mentioned. I had no idea that thousands of women were falling to this virus, that there was a vaccine available, or that “good” Christians were blocking it from the standard vaccine schedule for girls. The “culture of life” that some Christians promote is such an obscene joke.

Timmy, I’m glad you’re back. In response to some of your comments:

Re Point 1: “Work it. Everywhere you can. Be one of those annoying non smokers.... As respectfully as possible.”

I’m not sure that working it everywhere we can is a good idea for all of us. For a comedian, this seems appropriate, and I’m glad that Timmy is raising these issues in his professional life. As just an ordinary Jane, I don’t come across many venues at which discussing issues of belief would seem appropriate. I’m not going to become an Atheists’ Witness and go door-to-door to strangers (physically or online) to bring the good news to non-believers; this seems rude to me. So, as others are wondering, what makes sense for me to do as someone who is not in the public eye? Are there public forums in the non-wired world for discussing religion or atheism? Is identifying myself as an atheist whenever reasonable and looking for private opportunities to share my non-beliefs with the fence-sitters and seekers the best I can do? Maybe if people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are successful at making their views well-know, this will become much less of an issue. I don’t watch much T.V. – are they becoming household names due to media exposure?

Re Point 3: “When confronting believers, talk as much as you can about all of the imaginative ideas that have been coming up recently in this thread. The wonders of the universe, the idea that we are part of it in a very deep way. Show them the Einstein Spiritual side of science. In fact, Quote Einstein. Talk them as much away from Bible God as possible. Allow them to keep Einstein's god and your respect if you have to. If you can't talk them out of Bible God, talk them away from the church. And if you can't talk them away from the church, then try to talk to them about the ideal of separation of church and state. It should be an ideal for them every bit as much as for atheists. Try to get this across.”

Talking about all of these issues with believers seems important: lots of good suggestions here. I don't think that I want to "confront" people, though. I don’t like it when people confront me and go about conspicuously trying to change my thinking; I am much less likely to listen to what people have to say when they approach me with a confrontational attitude. I think it would usually be better to “discuss with” believers or “raise awareness” than to “confront” believers. I have been learning on this forum that it would probably be more productive. Maybe I could think of myself as a farmer – sowing seeds of awareness in fertile fields, with hopes that they will take root and grow into towering trees of disbelief. This approach has the advantages of being gentle and respectful to the believer as well as potentially being more effective than a forceful approach. Some of the seeds of awareness that I have shared with my sisters have already taken root and are showing promise. I think that if I had been more confrontational with them and put them in the position of feeling that they had to defend their beliefs, they would have “dug in” and been less willing to consider what I had to say.

There’s so much more that I’d like to respond to in many people’s posts and so little time … I’ll be back!

Pam, we've been keeping pretty quiet lately, and now here we are at the exact same moment. If I didn't know better, I might think it was meant to be(harhar)
Well, who knows?(Probably Ted or Richard)

Hello,All, I have been enjoying reading everyone's thoughts.
Like you, Timmy, I worry about language, but only a little bit. I think everyone experiences similar things, in terms of our spirits, or souls (though I personally doubt that it's anything seperate from our consciousness), and so there's no reason to think we should stop using those words. I really like what Kate said in her post about metaphor, and somehow Great Spirit makes a ton of sense to me. It expresses the way in which I feel connected to the cosmos.
I think everyone holds something sacred, and so I still use that one, too.
The word god, on the other hand, is different than "spirit" or "soul". For me, those are words I can relate to and use to describe the individual essence of each living being. "God" is something like "fairy" or "dragon" to me, sorry to say, and I can't imagine a way that I would feel comfortable using it. When we say God, do we mean the god of the pantheists, the deists, the monotheists, or do we mean one of many gods? Since there are so many widely varying "gods" we could be describing, I don't even see a good reason to join in a conversation about god, and would rather discuss the fact that each of us is an unrepeatable miracle of nature.
Since everyone seems to want the word "god" to mean just about whatever to whoever, I think it's become meaningless and shouldn't be used by any but the true believers.
By saying "god" when I mean nature, or the cosmos, I would be pretending to believe something that I don't.

KATE, I believe you have me confused with PAM who posts on this tread. Thanks and I will take it but it really isn't me. I have not posted on here from the beginning because as I said I needed a rest.

TIMMY, I have no answer for you. I have questioned everything else in the world but have always just accepted the fact that I was born and I will live and I will die. I had a rather strange childhood and suppose that has much to do with it all. I would not feel comfortable sharing it on this website but I can invite you to "our" other website Sam's Fans and you might get more of an idea of who I am. If that would be of any help to you.

After my experience on this website I believe that because my life took the turns it did I simply did not have a chance to think about all of the questions that many who post on here do and have studied, taught, read, etc.

Personally, I came here to learn. Ted, Richard, Tammy have taught me alot and so have others as I tend to read more than I post. I simply have a hard time with the confusion that sometimes takes place. LOL LOL

I believe that Kate's correct when she says I should just move on past those posts. I am going to take her advice.

Ted,

Sounds like a good read for me. I will check it out.
all the best.

Hi Timmy:

Not sure I can help very much. I would just like to report my observation that -- apart from the ding dong altercations -- many of the atheists/agnostics participating in this thread have exhibited agreeable surprise that being both an atheist and a mystic is perfectly possible.

I would like to recommend a top notch book called Mysticism and Philosophy by W.T. Stace. This book grapples with the nature of mysticism from a purely secular point of view. Although it was written in 1960 it is by no means dated. I have checked www.amazon.com and they have 4 or 5 copies at about $40,00 a throw. www.alibris.com also has copies but they charge $50.00 and up. If I did not already have a copy (since 1963)I would hunt around at various second hand outlets to try and get a better price. All I am really saying is that I know of no better book for those who are interested. Signing out. . . Ted . .

Andy,

It was not my humorous use of those words that got me into trouble. It was a very ernest emotional application of the every day soft meaning of those words that raised questions about my sanity.

I appreciate the clarity of your comments on the phenomenon that I was trying to express.

Pam,

When there is reasonable conversation going on, I will always ignore the Anony's and Jason's and keep on the conversation at hand. But when all other conversation has died, and I can get no response to an on topic and neutral post of mine except for Anony. What's a bored comic to do?
A simple suggestion would be to skip all posts labeled Timmy, Anonymous or Jason Bradfield.

If you and others keep me engaged in good conversation, I will not have time for Anony.
(Who I don't actually think is Jason Bradfield. The argument is very different. Equally as malicious, but quite different)

One conversation I would like to have with you is the "why" question. In earlier posts, you indicated that you had never wondered "why we are here?". "What it all means?"
I am intrigued because I have never met anyone who did not. This question is always the first one to pop up in my mind when I turn to deep contemplation.
Aren't these questions innate in all humans? Aren't they the whole basis for philosophy? Plato, Socrates and all of that. Is it not all based on the unavoidable human question of "why?"

I’m on European time: this is my hard-earned evening, still at the keyboard.

Said Kate:
You have just described ME. With one big exception, I don't process these experiences in order to generate "the illusion of a stable external world." In my imagination I referred to these experiences as entering from a parallel universe … I'm a lay person when it comes to science. I have organized my life around imagination, art, creativity. I pay attention to my dreams, to synchronicity, intuition … I use words like sacred, "the whatever," the mystery, the "force." I play with the possibility that the "force" is evolving as we are, all being within the universe and subject to its laws. … "What the bleep do we know!?"
(January 15, 2007 9:31 AM)

I can imagine your mindset, Kate. I have had valued relationships with people who share it. Science at its best needs imagination, art, creativity as much as logic and rigid methodology. As for dreams, I tend to think they’re the best things we have – "lose your dreams and you will lose your mind." (there, Timmy, I can do it too). As Nietzsche once perceptively said, it’s not absurd to regard the purpose of life as to sleep well – which I think also means to dream well, though I suspect for Nietzsche it meant rather to dream big, to dream bold, to thrill to the prospect of the coming of the superman.

Returning to Einstein for a moment, he stated quite clearly that his God was the God of Spinoza, and Spinoza was excommunicated from his Jewish community for his godlessness. Both of them saw the sometimes manifest, sometimes hidden harmonies and symmetries of nature as somehow divine, and used talk of God as a poetic metaphor to indicate this divinity. The philosopher Schopenhauer, in many ways a cold, hard, godless man, saw life as the manifestation of a universal force, which he called the will, and which Nietzsche later recast as the will to power. Freud saw the same force as either Eros or Thanatos, or maybe both. But Einstein was less impressed by such thrusting talk.

What we undeniably have in the universe is things changing in time, and these changes seem to track the ongoing forms of a polymorphous entity that finds little godheads in people and big fountainheads in stars. This entity is the universal distribution of mass-energy, which determines all that happens and even the geometry of spacetime itself. Broken symmetries engendered by the decreasing average density of this distribution since the big bang created the forces we observe now, all of which may have started as one superforce, back in the era when spacetime was as small as the higher dimensions of string theory are said to be. See how poetic the words of physics are! But guess how much gym work you need to do first to throw these words around without losing it.

At last we come to the movie "What the bleep do we know!?" Certainly one of my favorite movies of all time (check my blog for early 2006 to confirm that) but still deeply flawed. I know some of the scientists interviewed and have debated their views on many occasions. They are out on the fringe of orthodox science, and most of that quantum holism is too way out to be worth trying to relate to Heisenberg’s principle or Schrödinger’s cat. But something survives the critical acid, which is that because we ourselves are realized as incredibly delicate and fragile patterns of electrical activity over neuronets much finer than spider’s webs (which only escapes our everyday attention because it all happens inside our case-hardened meat heads), quantum effects are quite likely to play a role. If so, then we cannot rule out such quantum phenomena as entanglement (a.k.a. spooky action at a distance, or we are the world) and superposition (a.k.a. opposite things happening at once, like 0 and 1 in a qubit, or being in two minds). All this suggests that the multiverse picture can help us, which in turn suggests a role for something like free will to choose a path through the branching tree of possible futures. As I said, great movie! Timmy, you seen it yet? I offer my heartfelt thanks, Kate, for triggering all these fine words.

Said Timmy:
I wish my language skills were such that I could get away with using words like "higher power", "force", and "sacred". Though they are words that express some of my deep imaginations, they are words that seem to make some atheists nervous. I'll leave these words for Andy and others for now. That being said, I do very much enjoy thinking of these kind of feelings as being something that is beyond me as a singular entity. Because, as beyond me as they feel, I still know that I am an important part of it all.
(January 15, 2007 1:42 PM)

OK, you see how they work. They’re great words if you can manage not to make jokes with them. I see humor as great fun, as you obviously do, but also as something that can sometimes turbulate the water too much. For clear vision you need a water surface as flat as a mirror, no turbulence. And humor gets those giggles bubbling up. Good when you need to break out of the zombie blues but too distracting for cosmic consciousness.

I’m gonna stop here for today. Life must go on in the stuff world.

Yes,

Mother nature - the universe itself - the science we have not yet discovered. All things for awe and wonder.
These are all things that are bigger than us, and yet things that we are an integral part of at the same time.

I don't see my perception as a flawed view of reality. It is the only view that I have, therefore it is reality. Perhaps not someone else's reality, but it is mine of course. Of this I am sure.

These thoughts we have been discussing are closer to the Hindu idea of God than to the other versions. To Hindus, God is everything, everywhere. The entire universe is God, and so is that tree. Because God is such a general idea to them, they choose idols like Vishnu to put God into so that they can worship God = the universe = everything.

Here's a question. If humanity does lose it's widespread belief in a monotheistic God, in the future, as we all hope. What will become of the word God? When Christianity sits along side paganism in the history books, what use will we make of the word God? Surely it will not go away. The word itself. What will it's most common definition be in the future we all dream of?
Because I would like to go ahead and start using that definition now. Instead of destroying God, can we just steal him and redefine him? A la Einstein? Into a thought that is not delusional or dangerous?
God is not dead. He's just getting a major entity change operation.??

Pam,

Did not take your remark personally at all. I knew to whom it was directed. And I assume that when I told some folks to "stick a fork in it," you knew that was not directed to you.

I welcome your posts: direct, focused, informed. You love animals and nature. You would fit in Taos beautifully. Have you ever visited here?

Kate

Sorry Kate (Kat) Timmy I did not intend that remark to either of you. Well, except for the Timmy and Jason debate.

I have been posting on here since the begining and just probably need a break. I am listening by reading right now.

Carry on!

Dear Timmy,

Meow! Kat is Kate. Whatever “singular entity” once labeled a post of mine “Anonymous” has now named a recent post Kat. Go figure. Probably because these posts emanate from a place high in vibrations: Taos, New Mexico.

Timmy, I don’t care whom I make nervous. That’s the beauty of age. I guess you to be a young lad.

As I was editing a section of my manuscript this morning, I came to my leaving Taos for a year to care for my elderly mother in Chicago. A counseling client gave me as a farewell gift a prayer stick to plant either in Taos or in Chicago to “send prayers to the creator.” This client also brought a Mexican Huichol shaman, Guadalupe de la Cruz, to Taos many times. I will never forget the whole night peyote ceremonies we had.

At any rate, while I was editing I was wondering about the “prayer” I said when I planted that stick back in 1994 under sagebrush before I left: “Great Spirit, I leave my home and the land she sits upon in your care. Bless the ones who will live here. Take care of HoneyBear. Bless my coming and my going. Bless all my endings and my beginnings.”

I was going to strike the whole thing out. Me! Personifying a Great Spirit. Couldn’t strike it out. I’m a poet. I speak in metaphors, in symbols … use all sorts of figures of speech.

Some of us who have long left the belief of a personal god, have not yet left and may never leave, the realm of symbol.

Sometimes I refer to nature as Mother. I try to place “meaning” on things. Hopefully, the reader understands symbolic language. I believe Andy Ross and Duckphup do, and both are eloquent writers of both fact and symbol. We are fortunate to have them sitting with us at the table. (Now I could have said “forum.” Right?)

Bring your act to Taos. We are completely irreverent here. We'll love it. Remember Richard Pryor?

Kate

Oops.

It was Kat I was responding to there I guess, not Kate.
Sorry for the mix-up.

Kate,

I am like you in that I struggle to understand the science of what Andy is saying but I get enough to know that these thoughts appeal to me.

I wish my language skills were such that I could get away with using words like "higher power", "force", and "sacred". Though they are words that express some of my deep imaginations, they are words that seem to make some atheists nervous. I'll leave these words for Andy and others for now.

That being said, I do very much enjoy thinking of these kind of feelings as being something that is beyond me as a singular entity. Because, as beyond me as they feel, I still know that I am an important part of it all.

This kind of discussion is exactly the kind of thing we need to talk to believers about. This is the welcome mat I have talked about. We can have thoughts like these and still reject religion. It is important for believers to know that some atheists have thoughts of...... well I won't use those words again. I'll leave it for Andy and others who can inject enough science into these thoughts so as to not sound like they are on the slippery slope to God belief and global jihad.

I look forward to more comments on this line of thought.

I came back in with a sensible post. Something on topic and sharing. No body commented. Nobody was talking at all last night except for Anony (jason). So I tangled a little and had some fun with him. Nothing verbose. Just some quick illuminating back and forths. Don't read if you don't like.
And instead of commenting on that, why not comment on my neutral post to all, or start a conversation, or continue a conversation that you would like to have.

Is it not a bit contrary to ask people to ignore the posts that you are commenting on? Physician heal thyself.

If it sounds like Jason Bradfield, and writes like Jason Bradfield, then it must be Jason Bradfield.

Anonymous, you are not fooling me for a second.

Richard, Pam,

What we feed grows, what we starve dies.

Just ignore them.

Or as one of my Aussie students taught me when I was giving my attention to some racous (sp?) students, "Miss," he piped up, bobbing his chin over to those boys,"Pay them no mind."

Please respond to my recent post if you care to as I have carefully read all of yours (though did not always respond), unless it's too "out there."

Wondering about the wonder,

Kate

Kate

Andy,

Thank you! This is exactly what I'm looking for--a frame for my experieces of which you speak of.

"For me, everyday sensory experience is an ongoing revelation, which one might poetically ascribe to a higher power in the sense that it came from one knows not where, if one is to be honest with oneself. Sensory input comes in, and we process it as best we can to generate the illusion of a stable external world. People impressed by this revelatory aspect not only for sensory experience but also for thoughts whose logical provenance they are unable, for whatever reason, to reconstruct may as well describe them as revelations too. That is, they dimly sense that something they consider true is as true as anything else."

Andy: You have just described ME. With one big exception, I don't process these experiences in order to generate "the illusion of a stable external world."

In my imagination I referred to these exeriences as entering from a parallel universe, but you caught me there later in your discourse: "Game, set and match to the metaphysicians, who can now have a field day speculating about parallel universes."

I'm a lay person when it comes to science. I have organized my life around imagination, art, creativity. I pay attention to my dreams, to synchronicity,intuition ... I use words like sacred, "the whatever," the mystery, the "force."

I play with the possibility that the "force" is evolving as we are, all being within the universe and subject to its laws. I play, then, with the possibiity that all my choices affect everything--even--the "force." (Blasphemy! the religious cry.")

"What the bleep do I know" for lay folks like me spoke to all my above inclinations.

PS I have lived for 30 years with the American southwest Indians whose great seasonal mystery dramas feed me.

So maybe I'm a hybrid, not pure in anything. I would appreciate any of your thoughts. (Duckphup, too!)

Respectfully,

Kate

RICHARD, I am with you. I keep checking back to see if any "sane" people have posted. This bickering is way too much for me.

I can't believe you guys are doing this again. Didn't you have enough futility and abuse on the second Harris thread?
Bye.

Anonymous,

I am well versed in the Christian religion. I have 5 different Bibles and a nice size library of books on the history of church, and even on Christian apologetics.

When I'm feeling sad I pull them out because they make me laugh, and that cheers me up.

"Are evangelists zealots?" You mean like on TV? Not the funny ones. The funny ones are merely performers. The earnest or zealous ones are unfunny.

Mr Anonymouse

Are evangelists zealots?

Anony,

What is the point of not being fundamentalist?

God is almost perfect?
The Bible is almost right?
Jesus literally rose from the dead, but other stuff is metaphorical?

Aren't fundamentalists the only ones with true faith?

Hard for me to imagine a zealot could actually be funny. But if you can pull it off, more power to you. Thanks for offering me a supporting role, but I'm not into making scenes (even premeditated ones).

Anyway, it's Mr. Anonymous to you — we haven't been introduced.

Gad that's a great idea. I will definitely do that if I get a chance. I think I need anony in the audience for that. I'm sure that I have offended many a Christian over the years but I wouldn't know for sure because I have never been heckled by one. It's hard to heckle a comedian who's getting laughs at your expense.
There are definitley clubs where that Michael Richards spoof would go over. Urban centers like LA and NY of course. Wouldn't try that one in El Passo.

I need Anony at one of my shows. Where are you anony? I'll let you know when I'm coming to town and you can come and heckle me. When I ask you your name, you can say, Anonymous.

You're some kind of scriptural exegete, GAD? Interesting take, but sounds awfully fundamentalist.

Timmy, fat chance of anybody convincing you guys of anything that doesn't help you nurse existing prejudices.

GAD, exceptionally brilliant rejoinder. But (despite the lack of any evidence) I'll bet you're bright enough to distinguish sarcasm from bitterness.

Anonymous,

Just a reminder that per your law book, the bible, the world must come to an end. You can not stop it, and at the end only a "few" will be called, the vast majority of humanity will be left to suffer and die in the battle of Armageddon, and then on to hell. Read between the lines, that means no matter you do, or how many people you kill or put down, at the end of days the majority of humanity won't be Christian. You are fighting a losing battle per your own rules. You should not stand in our way, you should encourage us so the end will come sooner and you can go to heaven and not have to suffer any more time on earth with us than necessary!.

No, no funny Timmy!!! Don't say there is no hope for me! Don't abandon me to the great tsunami of unbelief! Save me from my delusions with your brainiac gut-busting irreverence!

I thoughht Eric Clapton was God.
I saw that spray painted on a brick wall in a picture once.
But I think that your definition is also valid.
Hindus also have God. And Muslims and Jews of course.
You're right. Einstein wasn't clear.
Which is odd. Like I said, he knew it was a sound bite. Why not be clear. Why not Religion is lame without Christ?

But I'll bet you will eventually convince this panel that Einstein thought that Christ died for his sins. You really have a chance I think.

Anonymous,

For a person who has found the love, joy and happiness of God, you sure seem awfully god dammed cranky and bitter! Did not enough folks die of AIDS this week to cheer you up? Maybe you need a good old fashion abortion clinic bombing to lift you spirits!

I wish that I could save you Anony. But unlike you, I am not delusional. There is no hope for you.
As I said. I'm working on your children's children.
And we will save them.
If literal jihadists don't kill us first in the name of God.

Ever go to comedy clubs Anony?
Or are you pretty certain that you will hear words that will hurt your ears. Thousands and thousands of people every week sit in comedy clubs across America and laugh at pithy religious irreverence Anony.

It's a tsunami Pal. And you are standing on the beach holding up your hand to the first wave and saying, "Stop, in the name of God".

Good luck with that.

For a monotheist, there are not multiple gods, only God (or not). Did Einstein say anything about multiple gods? Whether or not God is, God is not other than God.

Timmy,

I had funny thought (at least I think is).

Since your a comedian I was thinking about your doing your religion routine and getting heckled by some believers, then you go off like Michael Richards, only instead of yelling about what would of happened in the past to African Americans for doing that, yell about what we are going to do in the future to the religious fools who dare speak out..... It's a parody and it has an Armageddon feel to it. I wonder if the people would freak out, or go along with it like in Borat?

"Not that it will change my beliefs any"

Of course not. Nothing would.

I can't imagine how anyone could read Einstein on religion and think that, when he said God, he meant the father of Jesus.
When he said "Science without religion is lame". Notice that he does not say which religion. He is speaking of the general idea of religion. Otherwise, why not be clear about it. He knew it was a sound bite. Why not just say, Science without Christ is lame?

Oh, great. A zealot comedian. That's a joke.

Funniest line: "A brave producer will be required." No doubt. One can only imagine the pious peer pressure among the Hollywood devout.

See funny Timmy. Please, please save us from our ignorant selves, funny Timmy! O comedic savior! O droll deliverer! O erudite jokester! O all-wise wisecracker! We are so weak and ignorant! We have longed for you in our humorless darkness. Deliver us from our childish beliefs, O Enlightened One of the One-Liners. We are unworthy. Funny, funny Timmy.

Kate said:

"GAD: Could we say, generally speaking, (and from my personal experience) that the Christian god is a "he,"; that he fathered a son, Jesus, who also is god; that "he" rewards and punishes us; that "he" possess human qualities (loves, weeps, wills things to happen or not to happen), etc."

"If we agree on the above, then do you, just using your common sense, think that Einstein would believe in that kind of a "god"? Do you? I don't."

>> works for me, but apparently if any of the two billion "Christians" have a different list, then Einstein was a "Christian". Not that it will change my beliefs any, but they seem to want to claim him real bad. He could have believed in the same god as the "Christians" but not that Jesus was the son of god, then he would be a Muslim. lol!

Timmy,

Welcome back! Nice post. I like the smoking analogy.

WM, and others who have asked: What do we do?

1.
The end of the taboo on criticism of religion as put forth by Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, is key. This is, in my opinion, the most important contribution that they have made. We must follow their lead and support their brave attempts to shock us into a badly needed and long overdue raising of our collective consciousness. It is our responsibility to lift this taboo in every place we find it applied. Politely, responsibly, and respectfully. When I say respectfully, it is not possible to treat the taboo or even the religion with respect, but respect the person.

Is it tougher to quit God, or smoking?
Smoking is extremely addictive both physically, and mentally. It is also a social thing. Telling people that it could kill them and pressuring them to quit didn't seem to work. It was the social stigma of smoking that built over time that motivated most people to quit. It became not cool to force your second hand smoke on others. We are all hoping that the end of the taboo on criticism of religion will be similarly effective.
Work it. Everywhere you can. Be one of those annoying non smokers.... As respectfully as possible.

2.
Of course anything political you can do to get that last bit of church out of our state.
I agree with (I think it was Kate) who said this latest surge of religion in the US is a death rattle. I liken it to the drowning man's last grasp. Sparked off by the last straw, Janet Jackson's nipple flash at the Super Bowl. The heads of the Christian Corporation see it slipping and they are not going down without a fight. So be it.

3.
When confronting believers, talk as much as you can about all of the imaginative ideas that have been coming up recently in this thread. The wonders of the universe, the idea that we are part of it in a very deep way. Show them the Einstein Spiritual side of science. In fact, Quote Einstein. Talk them as much away from Bible God as possible. Allow them to keep Einstein's god and your respect if you have to. If you can't talk them out of Bible God, talk them away from the church. And if you can't talk them away from the church, then try to talk to them about the ideal of separation of church and state. It should be an ideal for them every bit as much as for atheists. Try to get this across.

4.
I don't know.

________________________________________________

I am in a fortunate position to help with the lifting of the taboo. As a comedian, it is exactly my job (after make em laugh, of course) to lift taboos of all kinds. Sam and Richard have motivated me to concentrate more and more of my act on this topic. I get to stand on a stage, under a spotlight, in front of hundreds of open minded American's, every week. I take full advantage. As a Canadian, living in America, I have a unique perspective from which to make comment.

Sample bit I've been doing lately:
"A lot of Canadians have been heard bad mouthing America lately. I assure you I am not one of those. I love Americans, for Many reasons. You still believe in God, that's so cute. (This draws laughs, even from the believers) It is, it's bloody adorable. You're like the kid who still believes in Santa even after his parents have told him that it was all made up. But he refuses to stop believing. Still writes him letters. Still likes to visit him at the mall. Cause unlike the other kids, he likes the bad touch. "

This goes over bigger on the coasts than inland. But I can make it work in Tucson if I'm careful. But you don't find a lot of sensitive believers in comedy clubs.
I am expanding my religious material until I have enough for a full length show which I will mount in small theaters and hope to tour the country with it.
My working title is "Mad Sacred Cow Disease".

I am also working on a second draft of a screenplay for a movie that will also raise consciousness to this conversation. If I can get it made. It is raising some eyebrows in Hollywood. A brave producer will be required. I have been given much reason to be optimistic. i'll keep you all updated.

I do feel fortunate to have an outlet for this message. I feel that I can truly make a contribution in this way. Hundreds of people a week hear my public irreverence for religion. And I am far from the only one. More and more comics are latching on to this lifting of the taboo. if you add us all up, thousands and thousands of people a week are having their tender ears pierced by religious irreverence of a hilarious nature. It's a sneaky way to get the message across. And we are taking full advantage.

We are all doing the right things. It will always feel like a snails pace of progression. Because as revolutionary as the message is, it can only help with the evolution.
I think that it's the best we can hope for. We do this for our children's children. They will be the benefactors.

God speed.
lol

Soja,

ciao

Kate

should be "people would be unembarrassed"

Phillip Tripp,

Adult converts — people who acquire their knowledge of the faith while possessed of a fully developed brain and adult understanding — always have a HUGE advantage over those whose formal religious education effectively ended at the age of 10 or 12, and who consequently are totally unequipped to develop a mature faith. (Is there any other field of knowledge about which people would not be unembarrassed to claim they learned all they need to know by fourth grade?)

Someone who approaches the faith as an adult does so with adult questions and concerns in the first place.

To Kate:

Errata: The meeting with Fr Bede Griffiths should have read May 1984, NOT 1994!

Phillip Tripp,

You say: “What if 2 billion people, adults and children alike still believed in Santa? What if, along with all of the other Santa myths, came eternal life in Heaven along Santa's side? … Would such conversions be happening in a world without the billions of adults who were brainwashed into belief at the age of 4? “

I’ve been wondering about exactly the same thing recently – thanks for expressing it so well. Seems to make sense to me. Don’t know what else to say.

WM, You say,

“Somehow I am left feeling that I should do something more (other than the obvious political stuff). I just don’t know what.”

Me too and me neither, but I’m thinking about it.

My closing thoughts on this thread:

• The closest word to describe going beyond reason/mind/logic without denying reason/going out of one’s mind/becoming illogical is “INTUITION.”

• Where do I stand on the IQ vs. religiosity statistics – i.e. my IQ vs. my religiosity? It is a non-question. I challenged the conclusion of a correlation between IQ and religiosity with my example of Einstein’s observation and the statistics of believers among scientists and mathematicians. I tried to point out that despite the observations made in the study mentioned by DUCKPHUP, the conclusion drawn is seriously questionable and opposite conclusions may be drawn using a different set of data and combining it with Einstein’s statement based on his observation.

• I never had the conflict - science vs. religion, for I never consulted the Bible or any other Scripture as a science or history text book. Scripture is not meant to serve as substitutes for science and history text books. The Bible explains creation in symbolic ways and it may have snippets of history or implications for science, but that was not the purpose for which Scripture was written, just as science and history is not written to serve the purpose of Scripture. In my understanding of God from the Bible, God made man only a little lower than the angels, gave him free will, and made him steward of the earth God created. It was out of love that God did not make human beings as puppets who would obey his laws, just as nature obeys His laws. God who created the marvellous universe does not need man’s help to create anything. In creating man with a free will, the potential for man to reject God, the ability to hurt fellow man, was the risk God had to take. Yet God wanted a relationship based on love with man, and that would not be possible without creating free will. God could have created man like puppets, men who obeyed His laws mechanically, but He chose not to.

• Science explains the details of God’s creation. One scientist explained it this way “So that’s how God did it!” Another scientist explained it in effect this way: “If I were to come across a watch in the forest, and pulled it apart and understood its intricate working mechanism, I come to the conclusion that an intelligent man must have designed and made the watch.”

• Believers like me come to this conclusion: In man’s capacity as steward of the earth, man uses his God created intelligence to discover the laws and various other aspects of God’s creation, uses his intelligence to change the world he lives in, to increase his comfort and happiness, and as his brother’s keeper, man uses his God given capabilities to make the world better for his fellow man. God is the source of all knowledge and wisdom. This outlook does not require the IQ of a scientific genius. It requires no more than humility, no more than a logic and reason that looks at the marvellous world and says “man did not create this universe, some superior intelligence did it and I call it God.” The extravagance and the marvellous beauty of the universe is mind boggling. To me it looks like an emperor who buys his children a million toys as an expression of his love and to keep them happy and fascinated. One does not need to be a scientist and understand all of quantum physics, mathematics, chemistry and biology etc to come to appreciate the beauty of the universe or draw the conclusion that a superior intelligence created it. But there is more to a man’s life than understanding the physical world in which he lives. There are aspects of the human being that science does not deal with – aspirations and dreams etc. Giving the superior intelligence a name, trying to explain it in different ways, catering to the aspirations and dreams of man, etc is the work religions sprang from. What man does not understand, religions call the mystery of God. One might call it as yet undiscovered aspect of God. Christians believe that Jesus came to give man a deeper insight into the mysteries of the greater intelligence and its plan that man had been grappling with since the beginning of time, and the superior intelligence had been trying to convey in different forms, through prophets, seers, founders of religion etc. A tiny spark of that superior intelligence behind creation resides in man and that has been called the soul, spirit, conscience etc. – the imminent God Dom Bede Griffiths was referring to.

• Einstein came to the same conclusion of a superior intelligence based on his knowledge of science. He called it a religious feeling. Did Einstein convey his religious feeling based on his knowledge of the physical world, merely as an ambiguous attempt to pacify believers as DUCKPHUP implied with (post 14 Jan 2007 12:07 PM) “As you can see, Einstein’s language was colourful, concise, poetic… and ambiguous, all at the same time; i.e. ‘believers’ could understand it on their own terms. Such was his genius.” Wasn’t Einstein expressing his idea of the one God in the way he knew best, just as the primitive peoples expressed it in the way they knew best?

• If an atheist is one who believes in a superior intelligence behind creation like Einstein did and has a religious feeling, then what exactly is atheism? In what way does it differ from that of a believer? Is atheism simply a means to explain God based on the intellect alone? No religion rejects the intellect; theologians use it to understand God. Is atheism merely a denial of an entity called god, but believes in an entity without name and form as mystics have described the reality of God?

• Is it possible for a sceptic and an atheist to communicate with a believer based on genuine respect? Do hard core sceptics believe in goodness and love? Do sceptics and atheists believe that there might be aspects of the universe and man that is as yet not clearly understood and believers have approached those aspects from an angle different from science? Do sceptics and atheists accept that just as science does not need to have all the answers in order to make science a valid way of knowing the physical universe, believers do not have to have all the answers in order to believe in God? Do sceptics and atheists know that their perception of reality, that their very non-belief is limited by their individual conditioning and unique perception?

These are just some of the thoughts that went through my head after reading the responses of DUCKPHUP, GAD and DYEDINTHEWOOLSCEPTIC.

To Richard Wade:

Many thanks for your kind words Richard. I’m here today because of the hundreds of ways in which people who crossed my path cared for me. The caring not only helped me to become who I am today, it also helped me cope with the less than caring things some have done to me. I wish you many good friends and caring people along your lifelong journey!

To anonymous (Ref post 14 Jan 07 1:59 PM):

Many thanks for telling me that John Stewart is Australian and for your implicit support by answering some of the comments made based on what I wrote, in ways I could never have done.

To Kate:

A correction regarding the time period I knew Fr Bede. It works out to nine years I think. I met Fr Bede for the first time in May 1994, and I saw him for the last time in September 1992. Fr Bede wrote to me for the last time in January 1993, after he had already started to lose the use of his hand for writing. Somebody else had to complete his last letter to me. Less than a week later, he suffered a series of strokes and after much suffering he passed away on 13 May 1993. I’m grateful that you mentioned Fr Bede in such a special way, for it brings back all my memories in a flood and I realise I have work to do for God, for that is what he wrote in his last letter.

I do not see any possibility of making meaningful contribution to the discussion on this thread because I notice that I am merely repeating myself. So after a very long break, I’m going to pick up the threads of working on myself again. Thanks to my participation in the discussion on this thread, it has been brought home to me clearly that I need to begin work on myself all over again with a beginners mind. The right time to start is now.

Thank you one and all! It has been nice “meeting” you, the exchanges have been interesting and I have learnt a lot. Let’s all - atheists, anti-theists, agnostics, believers, freethinkers, thinkers who are not free, sceptics and all other named and unnamed categories of human beings - keep our real common goal always in mind – happiness and deeper meaning for one and all.

Auf Wiedersehen!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

LBJ - My siblings are true believers: a charismatic Catholic, a traditional Catholic, and an evangelical christian.

Some of their kids are true believers also, but most are what I would call cultural Catholics. They got married in the church, take their kids over for baptism, communion, confirmation; some send the kids to catholic grammar school and then off to the public school. I don't see any Sacred Hearts or Sorrowful Mothers hanging on their walls.

Their kids will be even more removed from the church. And so it will go on. Plus kids will be more and more aware of other belief systems; how other families conduct themselves in terms of "going to church." They will see the array of choices out there.

It's falling away.

I was in Quebec this summer. Took a tour around the St. Lawrence Seaway. The guide pointed out the Catholic churches along the way. Many are empty, sold.

Hopefully, our homegrown "religious right's" loud voice is the sound of a death rattle.

GAD: Could we say, generally speaking, (and from my personal experience) that the christian god is a "he,"; that he fathered a son, Jesus, who also is god; that "he" rewards and punishes us; that "he" possess human qualities (loves, weeps, wills things to happen or not to happen), etc.

If we agree on the above, then do you, just using your common sense, think that Einstein would believe in that kind of a "god"? Do you? I don't.

Kate

Soja John,

You say, "Maybe I could spend the rest of my life reading books written by people who are convinced Jesus didn't exist."

No, there are just a few - written recently. Shouldn't take you long to get through them. I recommend it - considering all that's out there about Jesus - you owe it to yourself to hear alternative views.

Also, you say, "Equally I could spend a hundred lifetimes reading books written by people who dedicated their lives to Jesus and did wonderful things as a result."

Yes - that kind of book has been around for many centuries - because Jesus is a very old story, that after its first three centuries, had the Roman empire behind it - no wonder so much has been written -- doesn't mean it's all true.

GAD,

Your original claim was the following: "the God that Einstein was referring to is not the Christan [sic - are you making some kind of statement by continuing to misspell it? Just curious.] God" — to which you add, to indicate your absolute certainty, "of course".

Not sure how it's possible to assert non-equivalence except by defining the terms and providing some kind of logical proof.

Is there enough information about how Einstein understood God to provide a useful definition?

Next, how do you define "Christian God"? Must that definition be acceptable to all two billion Christians? Any? Certain kinds? An authority? Who decides? Or are you simply positing a definition for purposes of discussion (and in that case, aren't you rigging the game)?

Anyway, with those definitions you can proceed to demonstrate that they are not equivalent.

Assuming reason still matters to you.

LBJ wrote: "Did you not do exactly this to Timmy, no matter how much he pleaded that he was simply imagining the possibility of a higher meaning? He implicitly stated over and over again that he related this idea of a higher meaning to science, not to God or a deity or anything like it. You don't like it when people read something into your thoughts that you clearly did not mean. I saw nothing in any of Timmy's posts that would be considered any more supernatural sounding than "The Universe is on a journey to understand itself". You do not deserve to be jumped on for such a statement. And neither did Timmy."

-- Timmy spun his 'Shmorf' yarn, in which he attempted to weave a mystical quality around his his inner feelings, and then he asked: "Anyone with me?" I replied: "Sure... except for your invocation of 'faith', 'believe' and 'worship'."

That set Timmy off on a hysterical rant in which he assused people of being 'afraid' of the words he was using, among other things.

That's all I had to say on the matter, until a couple of days later, when I called him on his rant, and his sloppy use of language. I did NOT call him on his imaginings about some form of 'higher meaning'.

Anonymous:

Between Soja's poetic emotional pleas to God, that if you can't understand them it's because it's unexplainable, and you need to go beyond the mind. And your intellectually conceived 2 + 2 = 5 arguments, you guys have all sides covered.

It is absurd, there for it is true!

Also reminds of the Chewbacca Defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vTd77TB8ef8

Please enlighten me, based on the evidence that was presented, how is the statement that Einstein did not believe in the Christan God, wrong? I'm willing to learn, teach me why that is an irrational and unreasonable conclusion based on the evidence..........

DuckPhup:

You said:
"Anyway... after all that... all that I said was that the above is an interesting paradigm... a useful (and interesting) way to think about things. Please don't read any more than that into it... and for Pete's sake, don't 'believe' it."

Did you not do exactly this to Timmy, no matter how much he pleaded that he was simply imagining the possibility of a higher meaning? He implicitly stated over and over again that he related this idea of a higher meaning to science, not to God or a deity or anything like it. You don't like it when people read something into your thoughts that you clearly did not mean. I saw nothing in any of Timmy's posts that would be considered any more supernatural sounding than "The Universe is on a journey to understand itself". You do not deserve to be jumped on for such a statement. And neither did Timmy.

That being said, I'm not at all a fan of Timmy's idea that we be soft on the soft believers. I feel that these are the believers to be most cutting with. I believe (soft believe) that there is actually hope in talking sense into these "soft" believers and waking them up from their delusion. It is the deeper believers who are the lost cause, and only by waking up the moderates will we be able to put a dent in this stranglehold that religion currently holds on our society. I am for the Harris approach on this.

On another thought. Are we delving too much into the psychology aspect of belief, and looking for things like "the God gene" a little too much? Without bringing too much science into it, I am most curious about the simple effect of parenting, where it pertains to belief in God. The Santa thing has been brought up a number of times. What if our parents never told us that Santa was a lie? What if the mysterious presents kept appearing under the tree? What if most of the kids at school kept on believing into adulthood? What if 2 billion people, adults and children alike still believed in Santa? What if, along with all of the other Santa myths, came eternal life in Heaven along Santa's side?

The question was asked, "If science has now answered most of the mysteries that caused our forbearers to seek out and invent God, why, with all of these mysteries now uncovered, does the God myth still prevail in three quarters of the world's population? Because parents tell their kids, at the most impressionable age imaginable, that God will punish them if they do not believe, and reward them with eternal life ever after if they do believe. Could it be this simple? No God gene. Nothing that we're born with. Just the most horrifying, unintentional form of child abuse possible.????

My question is; could it be this simple? Or would it have to be something more than just that. I know that there are many cases of people who did not grow up in a religious household, who turned to God later in life, but are these not anomalies? Would such conversions be happening in a world without the billions of adults who were brainwashed into belief at the age of 4? I put this question out there to all. I don't know the answer. I would like to hear everyone else's thoughts on this.

Hmmm. Speaking of things not being what they seem to be ...

Point of clarification: my last post referencing John Steward's essay although written and signed by me, nonetheless, bears the heading Anonymous.

Hmmm.

Kate

Said DuckPhup:
The only people claiming to know the absolute 'Truth' (note the capital 'T') about fundamental matters pertaining to existence and reality are those who claim that it has been 'revealed' to them by a 'higher power' ... I am referring specifically to people who ... harbor the delusion that their internalized ideations map to objective reality. ... Even if one of these assertions happened, quite by accident, to actually BE 'true', it would still be irrelevant, because we are not coupled closely enough to objective reality to verify it by observation or experience ... I am quite comfortable with saying "NOBODY knows ANY absolute 'truth' pertaining to objective reality." ... I don't see this as being in conflict with the 'Law of Contradiction'.
(January 14, 2007 1:21 PM)

I sympathize with the general drift of your statements, but I’m pedantic enough to want to trip you up on a few points. For me, everyday sensory experience is an ongoing revelation, which one might poetically ascribe to a higher power in the sense that it came from one knows not where, if one is to be honest with oneself. Sensory input comes in, and we process it as best we can to generate the illusion of a stable external world. People impressed by this revelatory aspect not only for sensory experience but also for thoughts whose logical provenance they are unable, for whatever reason, to reconstruct may as well describe them as revelations too. That is, they dimly sense that something they consider true is as true as anything else they know, and fall back on revelation as the best account they can give of why they think it true. Now the normal rules of social engagement demand that such people admit their own fallibility, just as you do for your own core beliefs (at least for all truths that are not mere tautologies, which are best regarded as true merely by definition, such as the law of contradiction). Yet I hope you will agree that we do not want merely to silence those who lack the sophistication to express their beliefs in politically correct epistemological circumlocutions.

Said Duckphup:
The thing about Bell's theorem (and why I singled it out) is that it is a mathematical proof. It tells us that non-locality is a feature of reality ... Even if Quantum Mechanics is discovered to be totally wrong, and is rejected in its entirety (not terribly likely, of course), 'non-locality' will still persist as a feature of reality, to be explained in terms of whatever theory replaces Quantum Mechanics.
(January 14, 2007 1:21 PM)

Indeed, Bell’s theorem is a mathematical proof, given the premises. But the premises are statements about the physical universe, which may or may not be true of our actual universe. The theorem asserts that given those premises, a certain inequality holds in the quantum case that would not hold in the classical case. Experimental results then show that the quantum predictions are upheld. Good for quantum mechanics, bad for classical mechanics. But one of the premises is that causally efficacious signals cannot travel faster than the speed of light. This one can deny, if one is prepared to reconsider special relativity. The distinguished physicist David Bohm did just this, and developed a consistent, local quantum mechanics that incorporated superluminal information waves. Needless to say, most of his colleagues regarded his achievement as empty, since he did not explain how special relativity could fail to apply to information waves. Another premise of Bell’s proof, this one implicit, is that the described experimental interaction takes place in one universe. In that case, it appears that the nonclassical statistics can only be explained by nonlocal interactions, or what Einstein called spooky action at a distance. However, as David Deutsch and others have pointed out, if the interaction occurs simultaneously in a set of initially similar universes that branch to realize the respective possible outcomes of the experiment, then the probability that we find ourselves in the branch with the observed results is predicted correctly by quantum mechanics without nonlocality. Game, set and match to the metaphysicians, who can now have a field day speculating about parallel universes.

Said Philip Tripp:
I often wonder why religious beliefs cling so tenaciously to the majority of the world's people. Particularly a belief in a supreme being. With science dispelling miracles and explaining so much that was a mystery to ancient men, why do the beliefs of the ancients still resonate today?
(January 14, 2007 1:24 PM)

Anything that has stood the test of time seems safer than ideas that seem to come and go like spring fashions. For example, since Christian orthodoxy has apparently survived twenty centuries of vigorous philosophical criticism, it seems it cannot be entirely unsafe. Reality is full of paradoxes to a naïve logician, yet life goes on. So maybe the paradoxes of Christian doctrine are harmless too, says the believer. But I agree wholeheartedly with you that in an age where science has established itself so successfully, only someone who fails to understand the basics of the scientific method would seek to deny it on the basis of faith alone.

Said DuckPhup:
The ways in which we perceive the world owe much more to what goes on in our brains that to what actually goes on in the universe. Take vision. Think of a pencil, for example. We perceive it as a solid, opaque object. … The pencil is made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms. If you consider a hydrogen atom (the simplest), and imagine it blown up to the size of our Solar System, the 'nucleus' (sun) would be about the size of a grapefruit, and its single electron would be about the size of a pea, somewhere out around the orbit of Pluto. Now think about a Uranium atom ...
(January 14, 2007 1:52 PM)

Our perceptions owe a lot to what goes on in our brains, true. We have evolved to be efficient at perceiving things that are salient in our human worlds, where our survival depends on correct and exact perceptions, and yet remain hopeless at other, quite similar perceptual tasks. As for atoms, I must play the pedant and correct you. The hydrogen atom has a diameter of about a tenth of a nanometer, and all the other atoms are not much bigger (they have more electron shells, but also more massive nuclei that pull the shells in tighter). The hydrogen nucleus is a single proton, with a diameter on the order of a femtometer, which is a millionth of a nanometer. So if a hydrogen atom were as big as a football stadium (a few hundred meters), the proton would be a little pea (a few millimeters) in the middle. The biggest nuclei have two hundred or so nucleons, so they would be just a handful of peas. The general drift of what you said is right, but I wanted to set the record straight. By the way, inside nucleons it’s mostly empty space too, with three tiny quarks rattling around busily inside each one. Whereas electrons seem to be truly point charges, except for the fact that spacetime itself breaks down at the Planck scale, another twenty powers of ten down below the femtometer ...

GAD, whatever it is you used, you flatter yourself unreasonably if you call it reason. You made an argument based on assertions that you fail to demonstrate and terms that you fail to define and could not possibly know.

Anonymous said:

"GAD says, "the God that Einstein was referring to is not the Christan [sic] God of course."

Just curious how someone who is neither a Christian nor Einstein can presume to make such a categorical statement? The "of course" underscores the arrogance (of course).

It's entirely possible that none of us — not even GAD — perfectly understands what Einstein had in mind. And since there are more than two billion professed Christians, it is highly improbable that GAD is an authority on how they all understand God."

>> from what was stated, if you [anyone] can equate that to being the Christan God, then you are one of those special folks who "can go beyond the mind".

>> I used reason, not authority to reach my conclusion.

So reading today's posts, here we are ... NOW.

Here is the opening paragraph of John Steward’s essay “The Potential of Evolution” in the January-March 2007 issue of “What is Enlightenment?” (page 40)

“A major evolutionary transition is beginning to unfold on earth. Individuals are emerging who are choosing to dedicate their lives to consciously advancing the evolutionary process. They see that their lives are an important part of the great evolutionary process that has produced the universe and the life within it, and they realize that they have a significant role to play.”
______________________________

(By the way, Soja, Stewart is Australian. He’s the author of “Evolution’s Arrow: The Direction of Evolution and the Future of Humanity.”)

So how do we participate? I’ve moved from the authoritative stage, and the adolescent rebellion stage, but I’m not as fully adult as I believe I could be re the present possibilities.

Ideas?

BTW, who has seen the films/videos “What the Bleep do we know?” and “The Secret”? Reactions?

Kate
Snowed in again in northern New Mexico

Anonymous wrote: "If one refused to "harbor the delusion that their internalized ideations map to objective reality," would not that person be immobile and incapable of any action?"

Not in the least. The ways in which we perceive the world owe much more to what goes on in our brains that to what actually goes on in the universe. Take vision. Think of a pencil, for example. We perceive it as a solid, opaque object. But, it is opaque ONLY with respect to a narrow part of the electromagnetic spectrum to which 'light' belongs. The pencil is made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms. If you consider a hydrogen atom (the simplest), and imagine it blown up to the size of our Solar System, the 'nucleus' (sun) would be about the size of a grapefruit, and its single electron would be about the size of a pea, somewhere out around the orbit of Pluto.

Now think about a Uranium atom... one of the heavier ones. In that case, the nucleus would be about the size of a Volkswagen 'Beetle' (the sun)... and the atoms would be like a bunch of peas, starting out around the orbit of Pluto, and extending far, far beyond.

(For those who know that I have just described a model of the atom that was known to be obsolete around 100 years ago... so what? Consider the audience. We know that it would be more like a 'ghost-pea', smeared out around the entire solar system, and it would not actually 'become' a pea until something tried to interact with it.)

So, the pencil (and anything else we perceive as a 'solid' object) consists mostly of space. In fact, for all practical purposes, there is just as much actual space in the pencil as there is in an equal pencil-sized volume in the depths of outer space. Yet you can see it, pick it up, write with it, chew on it.

So, now... pick up a pencil, look at it, then close your eyes. When your eyes are closed, do you still imagine the pencil is as you perceived it to be when you were 'looking' at it? Yes? No? Well, it isn't. NOTHING is the same as what you 'perceive' it to be, when you are looking at it. Pencils have the POTENTIAL to be perceived as an opaque object when somebody is looking at it. By the act of 'looking', you are transforming POTENTIALITY into ACTUALITY... but ONLY in your own mind... in your own subjective reality. The rest of the universe does not care that you are temporarily deluding yourself.

I am aware of this 'truth' (small 't') about pencils. It has not made me "...immobile and incapable of any action." I am just as capable of seeing a pencil, and using it, as those who are harboring the delusion that 'what you see is what you get."

If one refused to "harbor the delusion that their internalized ideations map to objective reality," would not that person be immobile and incapable of any action?

I often wonder why religious beliefs cling so tenaciously to the majority of the world's people. Particularly a belief in a supreme being. With science dispelling miracles and explaining so much that was a mystery to ancient men, why do the beliefs of the ancients still resonate today?

Logic insists that either God doesn't care or God doesn't exist. God could exist. There just isn't any valid empirical evidence for that premise. God could be hiding and hasn't shown himself since Abraham. That premise also begs its own questions.

Believers don't use real logic to support their belief. They rely primarily on faith, "the good book" and an occasional one on one moment with God to affirm their belief. Most believers will agree that empirically, there is not much proof of God in the scientific realm. You simply have to use other means like faith. When I hear that someone's awe in the beauty and complexity of a leaf is all they need to prove God exists, I need not say more. You can't argue with that statement in the real world.

Instead, logic and science are equally perverted and distorted to support the belief in God. I think that is what particularly distresses non-believers so much. As I have seen so many times, logic and science becomes so distorted by believers, that often I can't understand quite what the are saying. It is almost as though a different language is being spoken. Their thinking goes right over my head, as it should, for we do speak different languages.

Now back to my original question. Could the tenacity of religious dogma be related to a lifelong core belief that one cannot and will not ever consider changing? Because changing your position, after so much is invested in the belief, is way too painful for most humans to even consider. It is so painful a thought, that they will fight with all of their might, both figuratively and literally, to maintain their belief is valid and good. In fact, in some cases they justify actually killing those that doubt their core belief. The bible is full of that truth. The fundamentalist Moslems that fly airplanes into buildings certainly believe that.

When I was a child, I believed in Santa Claus until my parents informed me of the "truth" about Santa. I was about 8. It was a devastating moment in my life. I didn't want to believe that my most cherished belief, as a child, was a lie. My sister, who was a year younger than me, seemed to have no problem with the news. I was speechless and in shock.

When I was 10 I found in our home, and read, a copy of "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. Our family were regular churchgoers and I learned about all of the major stories in the Old Testament. When I started reading in Paine's book about major inconsistencies with the Old Testament, my eyes became wide open with the reality that even religion may be like Santa Claus. It is just not true. A few years after that, even the concept of God fell into the trash heap of belief along with Santa and the bible.

Now fast forward a few years. My childhood brain developed into a far more powerful entity with which to view the world. Now, the seemingly innocent views of a child developed into hardcore non-belief.

Now let's use the Santa analogy and attach it to any of the millions or billions of lifelong believers in God(s) and all of the associated religious creeds. They are taught and believe their entire life, that God exists, there is a book that is the word of God, and miracles happen in the realm of the almighty. At some point in their lives, all believers are confronted with someone or something that says God doesn't exist. It usually hits them in the face when they are young or active adults and their adult intelligence is in place.

Now when they are told that Santa/God doesn't exist, they absolutely will not let that lifelong belief die. I had only my parents telling me that Santa doesn't exist. There was no other supporting "evidence" in Santa. I was 8 and had no way of validating Santa's existence on my own.

An adult has the Bible, a church and its congregation, and millions of others that insist that God does exist. The believer is safely nested in the soft womb of their chosen religion and its brethren.

It is conceivable to me that if my parents had not told me the truth about Santa when I was 8, but rather I heard it from others when I was 16, I would have fought hard to prove that what they say is a lie. At age 16, if I had a book written thousands of years ago that is the word of Santa, and millions also believe in Santa, then what easier thing could I have to tell that non-believer in Santa, that what they are saying is a lie.

For me, that premise answers many of the questions of why religious dogma for all religions is so prevalent. It doesn't profess to answer all of the reasons for religion. Some posters are going to attack my premise as not complete or not applying to everyone. You don't need to go there. I already know that.

For believers, I would only wish that they consider the premise that I have suggested, and consider it for their own beliefs.

There is no way that most of you are going to be able to accept the lack of evidence for God. For it would be too painful to abandon a life long core belief. One that speaks to the very essence of your being.

But there are some out there that are indeed riding the fence and don't feel a strong connection with your life long faith. Those are the ones that I speak to.

All the best, Philip Tripp

By the way, my sister who so easily accepted that there was no Santa Claus when she was 7, was recently babtized again as a fundamentalist Christian in the Great Lake that Chicago sits on. Perhaps that begs even more questions to my premise?

ANDY ROSS wrote: "Sorry, but this can’t stand. If the “NOBODY” claim is true, it’s absolute. Maybe we can know absolute truths, but maybe they become trivial to the extent that they’re absolute. If the law of contradiction is granted as absolute, then it becomes trivial in the sense that it regulates what we allow ourselves to assert. Similarly, the “NOBODY” claim would become trivial in the sense that we would simply refuse to grant absoluteness to any other claim, however solid."

-- Science doesn't deal in absolutes... scientists (except, perhaps, for very bad scientists) know that all theories are approximations, and that they represent a proposed explanation for observed facts. A 'good' theory is one whose explanatory power and predictive power have been demonstrated as reliable to such an extent that it would be "perverse to withhold provisional acceptance" (Dennett?). But you, of course, know all that... I say it only for the benefit of readers who might NOT know that.

The only people claiming to know the absolute 'Truth' (note the capital 'T') about fundamental matters pertaining to existence and reality are those who claim that it has been 'revealed' to them by a 'higher power'... which is, of course, nonsense. In this regard, then, I am not referring to 'logical' truth... I am referring specifically to people who are asserting their internalized conviction that they 'KNOW' the absolute truth (description of) pertaining to fundamental matters of existence and reality; e.g., the Genesis account of creation, or the resurection of Jesus. In other words, people who harbor the delusion that their internalized ideations map to objective reality. I say such assertions of internalized convictions are baseless, and thus nonsensical, if only by virtue of the fact that such assertions are inevitably in conflict with OTHER assertions, which provide a DIFFERENT (and often contradictory) 'Truth', pertaining to the same thing. Even if one of these assertions happened, quite by accident, to actually BE 'true', it would still be irrelevant, because we are not coupled closely enough to objective reality to verify it by observation or experience... and even if we COULD observe it, we are not intellectually equipped to properly interpret it (our biological hardware and wiring are 'designed' for a 3-D cause-and-effect world). Of course, all of that might change over the next few hundred or few thousand years... if ever... but in actuality, we are just babes in the woods, at the very beginning of our efforts to 'understand', and figure out what's what, and what 'is'. So, on that basis, I am quite comfortable with saying "NOBODY knows ANY absolute 'truth' pertaining to objective reality." I acknowledge that I might be wrong... but I still feel comfortable in saying it, for the same reasons and on the same basis that Russell felt comfortable in denying his sun-orbiting china tea pot. Also, I don't see this as being in conflict with the 'Law of Contradiction'. (Of course, in saying that, I might be guilty of the same sloppy thinking and sloppy use of language of which I am so often critical. Sigh.) --

"It is curious that you should single out quantum non-locality, of all things, as certain. A hundred years ago, a poll of scentists would have shown unanimous belief that non-locality was false (Einstein: “spukhafte Fernwirkung” – spooky action at a distance). Bell’s theorem is interesting, but it took some very careful experimental testing before we all agreed to accept it as certain. And it is certain only in the sense that the overall picture conjured up by quantum mechanics, for all its paradoxical weirdness, is the best we can do to explain the amazingly exact technical applicability of the laws of quantum mechanics."

-- The thing about Bell's theorem (and why I singled it out) is that it is a mathematical proof. It tells us that non-locality is a feature of reality... not of Quantum Mechanics... reality. Quantum Mechanics, for all its unprecedented success, does not provide us with a certain description of reality; instead, it predicts (with unprecedented accuracy) how reality will respond when we 'poke it'. There are several distinctly DIFFERENT descriptions of what fundamental reality is really like, which are ALL consistent with Quantum Mechanics.

Even if Quantum Mechanics is discovered to be totally wrong, and is rejected in its entirety (not terribly likely, of course), 'non-locality' will still persist as a feature of reality, to be explained in terms of whatever theory replaces Quantum Mechanics. I.e., non-locality is a 'fact', which Quantum Mechanics seeks to explain. I concur that it didn't start out that that way... but John Bell, mathematically, showed it to be a 'fact'.

(For those who might not know, 'non-locality' refers to interactions which are 'superluminal'... faster than the speed of light. Einstein's "spooky action at a distance.") --

"The problem I have with all this talk about absoluteness is that our own standpoint, relative to which all claims of truth must be evaluated, cannot be elevated too far without absurdity. We can bootstrap toward infinity, but we can’t get there, or at least not that easily. Whatever platform we stand on is absolute for us."

-- I find myself choking on "Whatever platform we stand on is absolute for us." I think that is so ONLY in the minds of people who don't know any better. Granted, though... that accounts for MOST people. --

"Because we are finite beings (or rather to the extent that we are finite beings, given that we might sometimes be mere channels for an infinite agent, for example an angel who tells us what to write), we are all fundamentalists about something, somewhere in our conceptual schemes. We may be arrogant enough to regard that something as known, but more often it will be wiser to admit to mere belief. I say we better get used to that fact, and try to make the practical consequences bearable."

-- The only thing that I am aware of being fundamentalist about in my own conceptual scheme is "I don't know". I regard all 'knowledge' pertaining to matters of existence and reality to be 'provisional'. With regard to 'mere belief'... about 80% of humanity constructs their world-view on the basis of their (mostly dogmatic) 'beliefs' derived from ancient myths, superstitions and fairy-tales. For me and you, perhaps, they are 'mere' beliefs... for others, they are the foundations of the universe. --

"(re: metaphysics definition) "Good, and well said. But we are in what the Germans call Zugzwang, which is a term in chess for the situation where you have to make a move. We can’t live with metaphysics, but we can’t live without it either. Any background beliefs, however trivial they may seem, to shore up our practical beliefs, both in everyday life and in scientific pursuits, add up in effect to a metaphysical system, which may of course be more or less systematic. I say we do better to look at the metaphysics and try to tidy it up, rather than just look away and hope it will somehow sort itself out."

-- I agree with that, except that I would make note that there are subtle qualitative differences in the meaning of 'belief', depending on the context of the conversation. Most people are oblivious to these differences. It is quite acceptable in the course of ordinary conversation, to say things like "I believe the sun will come up tomorrow morning"... which has no congruity at all with a statement such as "I believe that the world and the universe and heaven were created in six days, six thousand years ago, by god, as described in the Genesis account of the bible." In the first case, the 'belief' is trivial... and upon analysis, is not really a 'belief' at all. Rather, it is a metaphor (the sun doesn't REALLY 'come up') that expresses a reasonable expectation based upon one's knowledge base and experiential reference. In the latter case, the 'belief' is an internalized filter via which one interprets information, and constructs their personal (subjective) reality... and rejects, perhaps, the idea that dinosaurs existed hundreds of millions of years ago, and died out 67 million years ago. I contend that such faith-based 'beliefs' (delusions) are an insidious mind-killer, which cuts one off from the open-minded and intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own assumptions) consideration of alternative possibilities. I contend that it is the job of anyone who strives to be/become a rational thinker to ELIMINATE such absolute internal filters... to stamp out internalized 'beliefs' like cockroaches... and to re-file interesting ideas in a different brain compartment labeled 'paradigms'... useful ways of thinking about things. To work with and pursue 'ideas'... not 'convictions'.

Thanks for playing, Andy. I like it. --

LBJ wrote: "Sounds like a higher meaning to me DuckPhup

-- Higher meaning? Well, it certainly would represent a 'higher meaning' than any we are presently capable of perceiving, or even imagining. However, the way that you express your thought implies 'intent'... and 'intent' implies the 'guidance' of a higher power. I do not see 'intent' in the basic idea any more than I see 'intent' in evolution.

Having said that, though, one must acknowledge that the universe is evolving (changing over time), just as life on earth is evolving, language is evolving, culture is evolving, and ideas are evolving... and the evolutionary process is one in which complexity arises from simplicity. As the complexity of biological structures on earth increased, what we call 'consciousness' also arose. Is consciousness a function, or an inevitable consequence, of complexity? (Google for: 'self-organizing complex systems' and 'quantum consciousness'.) I don't know. Could be, though. And if that is the case, who is to say that the universe has NOT reached a level of complexity where it has become self-aware, or that it will not do so at some point in the future? After all, the universe at-large has been at it (evolving) a lot longer than WE (humans... biological 'life') have. How might we, as conscious entities, be wired into that process? Are we a part of the universe's 'neural circuitry'... its 'nervous system'? Just as individual cells in our bodies play a role in our existence, might we not play a minor (and probably insignificant) role in the existence of some 'higher' (for lack of a better word... language is abstract and limited) entity? Might we minor elements in the system by which the universe will become... of has become... conscious?

When I referred to the universe 'becoming', that simply refers to becoming whatever it is going to end up 'being'. The term has no mystical connotations whatsoever, any more than there is a mystical connotation to the process of a child 'becoming' an adult... its just that when applying the term to what the universe was, or is, or is going to 'be', there are a lot more unknowns.

As the universe 'evolves', and if any of the above happens to be operative, who could say that the universe would NOT develop 'intent'... that is, to begin to interfere with and direct what had hitherto been entirely natural processes? After all, it can be said that in the course of life on earth, 'life' (in the form of we humans) has developed 'intent'. Do we not 'intend' to understand the workings of the universe? Do we not intend to interfere with natural biological processes to cure and/or prevent disease?

The case might also be made for the idea that humans have interfered with (and at some level taken control of) evolutionary processes. We cannot interfere with the 'meta-rules' in deep reality which govern the processes of evolution... but we can (and do) interfere with the superficial natural 'procedures' by which those meta-rules are implemented. Are we?... could we be?... fulfilling the evolved 'intent' of the universe? Again, If any of this is so, I see no mystical or 'supernatural' connotations here at all. From the perspective of a red blood cell, or a liver cell, are the workings of the human body 'supernatural'? I don't think so... although the cell might think so, if it could think.

A thought about 'meta-rules'... might these meta-rules that govern biological evolutionary processes be operable at ALL levels of existence? Might not the subatomic structure of atoms have evolved, in the early epochs of the universe, in accordance with the very same meta-rules that govern the organization of the large-scale structures of the universe, or biological systems? The organization of DNA? (When I refer to meta-rules, I am referring to (unproven) exceedingly simple rules that reside deep in reality, and provide the basis for ALL self-organizing complex systems, at ALL scales of complexity, from the microcosm to the macrocosm.)

Anyway... after all that... all that I said was that the above is an interesting paradigm... a useful (and interesting) way to think about things. Please don't read any more than that into it... and for Pete's sake, don't 'believe' it.

Afterthought... I just want to add that I think 'life' is a common as dirt in the universe, and that within the next 50 to 100 years, we should have the technical wherewithal to confirm that. --

Soja... Einstein was an atheist. He SAID he was an atheist. He described his deep awe and appreciation for the beauty and complexity of the universe and nature as a 'religious' feeling in order to convey the nature of his feelings to ordinary people who were (and still are) religious. In other words, Einstein used 'god' as a metaphor, so that his expressions could resonate with the feelings of the people he was trying to communicate with. By trying to read any more than that into it, you are just confounding yourself. For example, take the quote which you cited: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Translation (my words):

If you coldly work to uncover the secrets of the universe without harboring an inner sense of wonder, awe and appreciation for the beauty, majesty, and symmetry of nature, you are depriving yourself of the most personally enriching part of the experience in what you do.

If you focus entirely upon what you think 'is', or what you have been told 'is', you are depriving yourself of the knowledge of the true basis for the awe and reverence that you feel.

As you can see, Einstein's language was colorful, concise, poetic... and ambiguous, all at the same time; i.e., 'believers' could understand it on there own terms. Such was his genius.

Good Morning All,

I sit down with my first cup of steaming dark strong black coffee at this table, and what a fine table has been set before me.

Soja, please stay. Welcome Andy. And the "old" voices who have become so dear how good to still hear from you.

It is a feast this morning of ideas and listening and open minds.

I have nothing more to say, except thank you.

But I shall be back, oh yes, you can count on that.

Andy and Duck"pup," you have struck a chord in me and it is vibrating now; the coffee is sloshing over the cup's rim (not really!). I just can't formulate my words yet. "The sea is so great and my boat is so small."

Later,
Kate

GAD says, "the God that Einstein was referring to is not the Christan [sic] God of course."

Just curious how someone who is neither a Christian nor Einstein can presume to make such a categorical statement? The "of course" underscores the arrogance (of course).

It's entirely possible that none of us — not even GAD — perfectly understands what Einstein had in mind. And since there are more than two billion professed Christians, it is highly improbable that GAD is an authority on how they all understand God.

To Soja John Thaikattil,
My warmest thanks for your encouragement. You are a most gracious and kind person. I am very moved by your caring. Thank you also for recommending "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism." I read it several years ago, and it had a powerful influence on me. I'll dust it off.

I will remember your words of comfort as I resume my effort. Your "two cents" are worth more than gold.

To KATE:

Dear Kate

I posted a short version of my experience with Dom Bede Griffiths OSB on the main thread. I agree he is one of a kind and I consider myself very blessed to have have had a personal relationship with him for eight years. There were many others around the world who enjoyed a personal relationship with him.

Fr Bede was a visionary well ahead of his time, and all we need to do is fulfill his vision. We don't have to wait until someone like him comes along. As a monk, he was used by God to be one of the important lights shining in the darkness to show the way, an answer to the pain stemming from religious intolerance. He didn't play the Guru at all. Fr Bede asked me to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit at all times in my life. Fr Bede was an incredibly kind and gentle person, with the personality of an Oxford don and Indian sanyasi rolled into one!

Wishing you and yours peace and joy!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

andy ross, Why not? And isn't it probable, whether or not we should?

Said Leejay:
As of today, I'm inclined to think that when the Big Bang occurred there was a flash of light and all things came from that. We are beings of light. We are human beings with a consciousness in each of us that is the universe awakening to its own existence.
(January 13, 2007 7:33 PM)

Once upon a time there was a big bang. A sea of particles and photons was created. The particles made stars, the stars made dust, the dust made planets and people, the people made gods. The photons made starlight, the starlight made life, life made electromagnetic symphonies in cerebral neuronets, and those electromagnetic symphonies made information structures invested with symbolic and totemic value.

Said DuckPhup:
I don't know about the "beings of light" part, but I've always been intrigued with the idea that we could all be component small-scale elements in the universe's journey to 'become', and to understand itself. It is an interesting 'paradigm'... in the sense of being "a useful way of thinking about things."
(January 13, 2007 7:49 PM)

The best and noblest part of a human being may be the brainwave symphonies in the brain. These carry our consciousness, represent an external world and our reaction to that world, and give form to the hopes and fears that launch our spiritual quest. Brainwaves are made of photons, and so is light. If we are stardust, we are also beings of light. The metaphoric extension of scientific doctrine here is equally good.

If human consciousness includes a world model that reflects the external world, then the tiny part of the universe that plays out its life inside a human skull may be understanding the universe at some level, as part of an awakening that spreads like a flame through the universe. So is the flame of awareness a real phenomenon? Experienced meditators report less a flame than a steady glow, or rather an inner transparency. The ecocycles that constitute human life peak in a state of being that is open to the universe.

Said Kate:
In the late '60s when I struck out on the "pathless land of truth" I had Chardin's "The Phenonemon of Man" and "The Divine Milieu" in my knapsack. I thrilled and still do to at the idea of a continuingly evolving universe. To be on the productive side of this evolution is meaning enough for me.
(January 13, 2007 10:42 PM)

Teilhard de Chardin found a scientific resonance in a big 1986 book by astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler. Their idea was that the anthropic principle, which is the idea that the universe is well furnished to accommodate life because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to remark on its furnishings, had a deeper significance and would drive the evolution of the universe to an information-saturated analog of Chardin’s omega point.

What can we make of this sort of idea? That we are tiny parts of the evolution of the universe is clear enough, and it also seems fair to say that our concerns reflect cosmic themes. We should naturally expect to see ourselves as on the productive side, and even to find that this view suffices to give life meaning. We are happy with where we are and what we’re doing. This is just as well, for if we weren’t we’d be in trouble.

One way to check the strength of a set of ideas like this is to spell out their practical consequences for our personal and public lives. If human beings are mere support structures for the photonic symphonies that take place in their brains, and if such symphonies can be bigger and better elsewhere, for example in quantum photonic supernanohyper computers, then we could upload our music and trash our old bods. We could leave the old stuff world, the world of stardust, to the robots, who could vacuum around the new machines and keep the electricity flowing by themselves. In our new global online digital paradise, we would be free to commune with each other to eternity, raptured away from the struggle in the Darwinian slime outside. But would we, could we, should we?

To GAD:

Once I tried to explain to a European, who had never seen a Indian mango, how it looked and tasted like, how an Indian jasmine looked and smelled like, and then realised some explanations get nowhere.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

To LINDA JOY: (Ref your post 13 Jan 07 10:40 AM)

Linda, thanks for the suggestion to read Acharya's book. Maybe I could spend the rest of my life reading books written by people who are convinced Jesus didn't exist. Equally I could spend a hundred lifetimes reading books written by people who dedicated their lives to Jesus and did wonderful things as a result.

Food for thought? Surely!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Soja,

"Real belief in God is based on a personal experience."

>>The difficulties with this statement are immense! To much so for me to even try and take a wack at. maybe someone else will.

"In matters pertaining to faith the mind may be a blessing or a curse, because an intellectual person must go beyond his mind, not give up his intellectual capacities, but go beyond it to discover faith."

>> How does one "go beyond their mind"? What does that even mean, it seems completely nonsensical.

" Science does not require faith in God as a skill. Based on Einstein’s observation, could one then conclude that a little knowledge leads to atheism and profound knowledge leads to a religious feeling?"

>> No, I can't see that one necessarily follows the other?

>> Lastly from the article you sent the God that Einstein was referring to is not the Christan God of course, there is no communications, laws or faith involved, and from this "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events" he doesn't do anything for you. All that is need "rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law".

>> Where was talking about Einstein and God together supposed to lead?

To DYDEDINTHEWOOLSCEPTIC:

Please read my comments in context. I was merely responding to the study which according to DUCKPHUP supposedly concluded "In other words, the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to be religious...statistically speaking." I was just trying to point out how conclusions drawn correlating IQ and religious faith, may be done wrongly! The irony of my statement was obviously missed.

If you read all of my posts in context, you'd know that I have always maintained IQ and religious faith cannot be correlated. I have read comments on this thread which implied that religious belief was somehow an inability to reason and a defect in logic. I just tried to point out that if the same logic was used, a different conclusion could be arrived at, depending on how one looked at the issue and what data one chose to use for the purpose.

I have no quarrel with atheists at all. I'm not trying to convert anyone. In one of my earlier posts on an other thread I had mentioned that I would not cross swords with an atheist. Both atheists and believers could argue until the end of time and we wouldn't get anywhere. I had also mentioned that no one is coverted through arguments. Faith is an experience and I'm perfectly comfortable with atheists holding on to their point of view and I respect them as persons. By the same token I expect an atheist to respect that I have a different perspective. This discussion is about trying to build a common point of communication. The differences are all too well known.

Peace!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

If you say so. Don’t forget to click your heels three times though.

Belief in God is based on a personal experience, and/or faith in a being higher than a human being. Faith in God has nothing to do with anyone's IQ.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

WM,

"How do we connect with reasonable people of faith and other atheists in a meaningful way and work to make the world a safer place for all our children?"

>> Thats a tough one. A slick atheist marketing and media corporation would do it.

"Somehow I am left feeling that I should do something more (other than the obvious political stuff). I just don’t know what."

>>I have the same feeling. When I see articles like this one I go crazy and want to do something, I just don’t know what either. Perhaps being is a start.

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/2/8/spreadLoveNotHpv

Soja wrote:

Based on Einstein’s observation, could one then conclude that a little knowledge leads to atheism and profound knowledge leads to a religious feeling?

Sure you want to advance this idea? Ah, never mind, but I am curious: as one who has “never had a crisis of faith”, where you would put yourself on this scale.

To DUCKPHUP: (Ref your post 13 Jan 2007 9:58 AM

-------------------------------------------------
From Wikipedia about Einstein:

Einstein published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled Science and Religion which gave his considered views on the subject.
In this he says that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation...In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects."
He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies"... "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." However he makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events.

"To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted...by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

“You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man.”

“But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
________________________________________________

Duckphup, it is true that Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he did admit that he "believed in a God who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the universe, that reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." It is vitally important to note that he said “science without religion is lame… a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist… Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation...”

You mentioned the statistical significance of an inverse relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and the conclusion “ In other words, the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to be religious... statistically speaking.” I presume one could possibly find the same correlation between materialism, wealth, and REAL religiosity. Does that mean that wealth directly affects religiosity in a way that is beyond the free will and control of a human being?

The survey that showed 7% of scientists, and 14.3% mathematicians were religious, might seem like a terrible blow to religion. But the real question is how do those scientists and mathematicians maintain their faith despite their intelligence and scientific knowledge? According to Einstein, “You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own.” Real belief in God is based on a personal experience. Being subtle, anyone may choose to ignore such an experience if they had one. In matters pertaining to faith the mind may be a blessing or a curse, because an intellectual person must go beyond his mind, not give up his intellectual capacities, but go beyond it to discover faith. Science does not require faith in God as a skill. Based on Einstein’s observation, could one then conclude that a little knowledge leads to atheism and profound knowledge leads to a religious feeling?

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

I'm feeling quite refreshed after my trip to the science center. Good times with my little girl! What could be more inspiring than giant cockroaches and life-sized, moving dinosaurs?

I can't take credit for DuckPhup's comment “I was not looking to be converted or join an army, just debate ideas to see where mine stood. The very act of talking about and sharing these ideas is powerful, spreading the word is more powerful then taking up arms,” but I had basically the same intention when I started commenting here. I enjoy discussions with interesting people if for no other reason than to further develop my thoughts, benefit from others’ experiences and reasoning, and figure out where I’m missing the boat. And I have to admit, I thought that some believers could benefit from some exposure to various atheist ways of reasoning on matters of faith.

If nothing else, this forum has given us a chance both to expose ourselves and seekers to various atheist ways of thinking about spirituality – and show what a diverse non-group of people atheists and agnostics are! And hopefully we have discovered and shown that atheism does not have to be a cold, unfeeling, unconnected state of being.

The questions that Timmy has posed remain – and I think that they are vitally important. How do we connect with reasonable people of faith and other atheists in a meaningful way and work to make the world a safer place for all our children? Is discussing faith and belief and our mutual experiences with seekers, contributing to forums such as these, going to make enough of a difference? I doubt it, though it is a starting point. Nobody except for my sisters and my mom has ever asked me about my religious non-beliefs in my non-wired life. Besides, the most dangerous people are not the ones listening to atheists – or anyone else for that matter - with open minds. Somehow I am left feeling that I should do something more (other than the obvious political stuff). I just don’t know what.

What do the rest of you think about this?

Linda Joy - also check out "the Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy - same stuff, but more mainstream, I think, and has a lot of references (haven't seen the one you mention, but have heard of it).

Then there are the liberal Christians who have discounted the pagan-related Jesus life story, but think there was a Jesus who, like a fair number of Jews in first century Palestine, were out preaching and predicting the end of the world. They think the whole miraculous, pagan-inspired story was then constructed around this actual person to make him more God-like. Still, there is very thin evidence for such a person – just some writings (“sayings of Jesus”) that can be found in several of the Gospels in the New Testament and in some of the lost gospels just found in the 20th century, that seem to point to a specific personality. But they could also could have come several like-minded people.

To RICHARD WADE:

I dare to suppose that the sixteen years you spent facing the wall and meditating aren't wasted. Who knows the experience you were longing for was probably just around the corner. It will all come back when you go back to meditation. Nothing is ever wasted. We are expected to wear our false egos out like an old shoe. Meditation is about surrender and that is always a difficult concept for the intellectual mind to grasp. I found the book "Cutting through spiritual materialism" very useful.

Just my two cents worth.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

To TIMMY:

I wrote that I would respond to your post of 9 January 2007 3:05 AM over this weekend because I wanted to give it a little thought before responding. I hope you return to the thread and notice that I am posted before your weekend came to a close.

I’m not any closer to feeling that I have any appropriate response, but I will respond anyway.

First of all, I like your spirit – the enthusiasm and passion you bring into your search for truth. Keep that up! Our journey is for life and the path is the goal. You are entitled to your thoughts and opinions no matter what they are. As long as you don’t insult anyone, you have the right to express anything you please. You are allowed to challenge anyone’s thoughts, as they are allowed to challenge yours. There is no need to feel alone because of your thoughts. Come to think of it, none of us have 100% in common with anyone else in the world. Thoughts and opinions are just thoughts and opinions. Don’t cling to them as if they were your life. Thoughts come and go, and most of all thoughts evolve with time as we gather more information. That information gathering goes on until we die. So wear your thoughts, opinions, convictions, including your atheism like a loose garment, ready to throw it off as you process new information and be ready to modify and change your thoughts and opinions as a result. Keep only what is right and good for you. If your atheism makes you happy keep it. If it should become outdated, throw it away without fear of what others may think. It is like today’s science superseding yesterday’s science.

Since I have never felt called to be a spiritual guide of any kind, I tremble at the thought of giving you any sort of suggestion. I can only speak about my own experience, which isn’t probably of much use to an atheist because I was never an atheist and never had a crisis of faith. My Christian beliefs evolved with time of course, but I did not have to find it. (Aside, to satisfy historical curiosity – I belong to the Syro-Malabar Catholic tradition, which became affiliated to the Roman Catholic Church. Tradition has it that my Hindu ancestors were Nambudiri Brahmins from Kerala, in India, who were converted to Christianity by Apostle Thomas in 52 AD. My family lived for over nineteen centuries in the same little village located only a few kilometres away from where Apostle Thomas is supposed to have landed. I was eight years old when my father, the first in the family, moved out of the village. He was buried there according to his wishes ten years ago.) At no time did I go from ‘there must be something greater to the God of the Bible.’ I worked my backwards to that knowledge after meeting Dom Bede Griffiths in 1984 – finding out that once upon a time people worshipped God as nature, then progressed to worshipping idols and offering sacrifices, then went to the forest to meditate to find that God who is beyond thoughts and words, then finally coming to the expectation of God being born as a human being. And most importantly that God communicated with all people throughout history, not just with the Jews, athough Jesus was sent to the Jews and His coming was predicted by the prophets. Fr Bede explains the evolution in his books in a way that would appeal to any scholar. Read his books if you are curious to know how he worked it out: “Marriage of East and West”, “Cosmic Revelation”, “River of Compassion”, and for how he integrated science, “A New Vision of Reality.”

As a suggestion for you I can only recommend meditation as a good way to begin the journey to experience personally and at a deeper level that greater reality or deeper meaning or Schmorf or whatever else you may choose to call it. Meditation is merely a technique of using the mind to get beyond the mind. It is like leaving your Ferrari to climb into a helicopter. The view is completely different. While it is absolutely essential to find your own way to your reality, it is helpful to read of the experiences others have had, so that you may know what to expect along the way. After all even scientists, who set out to discover new things, don’t reinvent the wheel. They read up on the work done by others before them as preparation. You don't have to read all the books available, a couple of good books will do the trick. Listening to your inner moral voice as your inner guide is extremely important.

There are so many types of meditation techniques to choose from – Christian contemplation (Thomas Keating, Anthony DeMello), Buddhist – Zen or Tibetan (DT Suzuki’s Zen mind Beginner’s mind, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism by Chyoegam Thrungpa are both very good reads, no matter what path you may choose; William Johnston) and Hindu. You are sure to like J Krishnamurthy if you haven’t already read him. He doesn’t represent any religion! The only reason I’m a bit wary of his advice not to seek out a meditation teacher as guide is because he seems to overlook the dangers of going it alone. Mind you JK was groomed for many years before he set out on his own. Meditation can lead you to the jungle of your mind, so it is good to have someone who has gone the path before, to give some kind of guidance. You don’t have to worship the person as a Guru or take his word as infallible (you are expected to make your own unique experience), but it is helpful to have someone to talk to, to encourage you, to guide you when you feel completely lost or confused. Be prepared for the long haul, and it is a journey that will last the rest of your life. It is at the same time like a fish who searches for the ocean in which it lives.

What you can expect to gain along the way: The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. (Gal 5:22)

Today, a song I had learnt a long time ago, suddenly popped up in my mind. It seems to fit your question about meaning. So I’ll share it with you as a believer. You may substitute the word God with Schmorf.

Love it was that made us
And it was love that saved us
Love was God’s plan, when He made man
God’s divine nature is love.

Born of God’s love, we must love Him
That’s why He made us – to love Him
But only when we love all men
Can we partake of God’s love.

But only when we love all men
Can we partake of God’s love.

There is a saying “When the student is ready, the master appears.” Good luck on your journey!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

In the late '60s when I struck out on the "pathless land of truth" I had Chardin's "The Phenonemon of Man" and "The Divine Milieu" in my knapsack.

I thrilled and still do to at the idea of a continuingly evolving universe. To be on the productive side of this evolution is meaning enough for me.

I can take the god talk out of his work, and the work still stands for me. I am reminded now of the work of Matthew Fox, defrocked by the Domninicans and then the pope -- so you know he was on to something.

This is a hot topic now and everyone wants to own a piece of it, so my inner skeptic is on high alert.

Duck"pup" (do you mind?) could you say more? This is exactly what I'd like to explore.

Thanks.

Kate

actually, sounds like teilhard de chardin

Sounds like a higher meaning to me DuckPhup

Leejay wrote: "As of today, I'm inclined to think that when the Big Bang occured there was a flash of light and all things came from that. We are beings of light. We are human beings with a conscious in each of us that is the universe awakening to it's own existence."

I don't know about the "beings of light" part, but I've always been intrigued with the idea that we could all be component small-scale elements in the universe's journey to 'become', and to understand itself. It is an interesting 'paradigm'... in the sense of being "a useful way of thinking about things."

As of today, I'm inclined to think that when the Big Bang occured there was a flash of light and all things came from that. We are beings of light. We are human beings with a conscious in each of us that is the universe awakening to it's own existence.

Yes to GAD and WM.

I'm here to expand my perspective on the path I've chosen (or did it choose me?). I want to be nudged and questioned and provoked. I want to learn something new.

So how about someone throwing a question into the ring?

"Now is our time."

Kate

"Navynukecdr's comments are the most eloquent synopsis of a non-believers credo that I have read to date."

Thanks for the very interesting citation, Philip. While Navynukecdr certainly is down on fundamentalism, I didn't see anything in his post that an orthodox, traditional mainstream (i.e., non-fundamentalist) Christian would find objectionable. I assume somebody like Dawkins wouldn't buy it. imho, fwiw

“I was not looking to be converted or join an army, just debate ideas to see where mine stood. The very act of talking about and sharing these ideas is powerful, spreading the word is more powerful then taking up arms.”

WM -- My sentiments exactly

I'd rather be called a harmless name like a "freak",
than be labeled as one with "dangerous thoughts".

Carry on.

Anonymous says that the Bible is not dogma.
Take on that horseshi#@.
Not me.

Okay, I really am out now.

Timmy,

"We don't imagine of things that we can not imagine yet"

>>This is not what was stated.

"Wow. What am I to do?
The atheists say that I'm one of those believers and the believers won't have me because I think that that they are delusional, and I keep telling them that God does not exist."

>> don't panic!

"Old definition of Atheist:
One who believes that God does not exist."

"Sigh. That was me. I was an atheist when that was the definition. Those were god times."

>> times change and so do ideas. If you have ever talked to non-theists, spiritualist, you find out in short order that they are following the yellow brick road to Oz, same as the theists, they just call it blue or red or green...... That is why my definition of Atheist includes spiritualist. Other Atheists may disagree, I do not own the definition, so without consensus it is not the default.

"New Definition of Atheist:
(According to what I have been told on this post)
One who never ever even considers the notion that science might one day discover something that gives meaning to life beyond anything we might now be able to imagine."

>> Thats really not what was stated. More like "one who does not *believe* that there is a "higher purpose" to life then we know."higher purpose" implies a *designer*, be it God or an Alien.

"So. An atheist can not consider the possibility of the discovery of life on other planets in the universe or mulituniverse.
Because currently we know of no other intelligent life in the universe but ours. And if we were to find intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe, surely this would give our lives a whole new meaning. I don't think that anyone, the day after such a discovery, would feel the same about the meaning of their life. ESPECIALLY THE GOD BELIEVERS
A whole new meaning for everybody.I can't wait for all of the atheists (by the new definition) to pipe in and tell me that this would not change the meaning of their lives one bit. That there would not be a sense of a higher purpose on that day."

>> are you sitting down, I think that there is the highest probability that there is other life in the universe and mulitverse if it exist. Talking to aliens does not lead to a higher purpose of life by my definition unless they designed me for their own purposes. Is that Scientology?? The above statement is what confuses people, one does not follow the other.

"Scientists theorize that we might one day be able to bend the space time fabric and travel to far off galaxies.Bend space time fabric and travel distances in one minute, that light can not travel in a thousand years.Yeah, that wouldn't change the meaning of peoples lives as we currently know it.

>> same as above, one does not lead to the other.

"I won't be labeled a "non atheist" by you freaks just because you hear different things than I say.
I say "higher meaning" "higher meaning" "higher meaning" and you paranoid freaks all hearGOD GOD GOD GOD"

>> name calling doesn't help your case.

"He's looking for God, you heard him. Get him!"
"Yeah I know, he said "higher meaning", but we all know what he meant. These are the signs we need to look out for. We all know what these kind of thoughts can lead to"

>> thats how some of what you say comes across. If thats not what you mean change your words to help people understand you better.

"If you think that I am one of them because I use the words "higher meaning" then you are all a bunch of paranoid freaks who deserve each other."

>> name calling again

"You are are group who desperately need to grow into a larger group if you are to have any chance in hell of reaching your goal politically or any other way. (what is it by the way? your goal)."

>> Well I'm here to see how my ideas hold up in comparison with other like minded folks. I've never done this before, I have a lot of ideas that I think very good and solid and wanted to see how they held up in this kind of forum. I was not looking to be converted or join an army, just debate ideas to see where mine stood. The very act of talking about and sharing these ideas is powerful, spreading the word is more powerful then taking up arms. I hope your not saying that because everyone didn't agree with you, that you are going to take the dark path to spite them..........

>> I'm skipping the rest as it mostly angry ramblings.

Don't let the hard-core atheists get you down, Timmy. I'm sure that your thoughts are welcome here to a lot of people - myself included. Anybody who doesn't want to read particular people's posts can just skip them.

The conversation over the last couple days got out of control. It happens when people are passionate about what they are discussing. We're all just people. I'm wondering how many of the people posting here could use a good night's sleep - and, as Richard Wade suggests, some deep breathing. And - I hate to use the word meditation - maybe some time sitting quietly and watching our thoughts racing around in our monkey brains and seeing if any insights into our thinking float to the surface.

I'm off to take my daughter to the local science center, but when I get home I think I will do exactly that.

Gotta love you too, Kate, I think.
If you're insinuating that you'd like me to shut up as you did with Timmy, don't be shy, just say so. I probably will.
For really restorative deep breathing, stand up, go outside, lie down in the grass somewhere and watch the sky go by.
Richard

Wow.

This will be my last post.

I have been told.
I am not an atheist. Or if I dare call myself one them I am quickly labeled a heretic of that religion.
"You can not be one of us if you have imaginations like the ones you have described". "You are more like one of them. We don't imagine of things that we can not imagine yet"

Wow. What am I to do?
The atheists say that I'm one of those believers and the believers won't have me because I think that that they are delusional, and I keep telling them that God does not exist.

Old definition of Atheist:
One who believes that God does not exist.

Sigh. That was me. I was an atheist when that was the definition. Those were god times.

New Definition of Atheist:
(According to what I have been told on this post)
One who never ever even considers the notion that science might one day discover something that gives meaning to life beyond anything we might now be able to imagine.

So. An atheist can not consider the possibility of the discovery of life on other planets in the universe or mulituniverse.
Because currently we know of no other intelligent life in the universe but ours. And if we were to find intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe, surely this would give our lives a whole new meaning. I don't think that anyone, the day after such a discovery, would feel the same about the meaning of their life.
ESPECIALLY THE GOD BELIEVERS
A whole new meaning for everybody.
I can't wait for all of the atheists (by the new definition) to pipe in and tell me that this would not change the meaning of their lives one bit. That there would not be a sense of a higher purpose on that day.

Scientists theorize that we might one day be able to bend the space time fabric and travel to far off galaxies.
Bend space time fabric and travel distances in one minute, that light can not travel in a thousand years.
Yeah, that wouldn't change the meaning of peoples lives as we currently know it.

I won't be labeled a "non atheist" by you freaks just because you hear different things than I say.
I say "higher meaning" "higher meaning" "higher meaning"
and you paranoid freaks all hear
GOD GOD GOD GOD
"He's looking for God, you heard him. Get him!"
"Yeah I know, he said "higher meaning", but we all know what he meant. These are the signs we need to look out for. We all know what these kind of thoughts can lead to"

If you think that I am one of them because I use the words "higher meaning" then you are all a bunch of paranoid freaks who deserve each other.

You are are group who desperately need to grow into a larger group if you are to have any chance in hell of reaching your goal politically or any other way. (what is it by the way? your goal)

Like I said before, if you're kicking people like me out of your club, and sending me over to the other side for my heretical thoughts, then God help you.
Your mission is toast.
Not because you need my thoughts. Because you need my numbers.

I will stop posting here since my ideas are not welcome by either side.
But I will check back every couple of weeks to see how you're all doing with the same old argument.
I bet a million dollars you are nowhere. And three years from now, if you continue with these arguments.... Nowhere.

Our side says this.
Oh yeah? Well our side says that's all bull crap! And here's why.
Oh yeah? Well our side thought you might say that so we came up with this argument.
Yeah well our side thought of that so we came up with this argument which blows that argument away.
Yeah well our side doesn't accept that argument because you can't say what God is like. We can not understand him in scientific terms.
Yeah but your side says what God is like all the time in your arguments.

And Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

You all enjoy that argument too much to notice how circular and pointless it is. Good luck with it.

I'll see you nowhere in three weeks. And then nowhere again in three more.
Anyone want to take me up on that bet and put some money on it?
Anyone want to bet me that if I come back here in three weeks, that they will have made progress with their argument, and not still be making the same ones over and over again with futility?
Any takers?
I need the money.
Not really, I'm doing quite well but who doesn't want more money. Especially when it's this easy.

So good luck you brilliant debaters.

Science damn me.
and
God damn me.

Nobody wants me.

Boo hoooo hoo.

lol

Hey everyone, I would like to recommend that you all go and read the opinions of NAVYNUKECDR. His only post is January 12th at 11:49pm on the other thread of Sams that started on December 28th.

That thread is titled "God's enemies are more honest than his friends".

Navynukecdr's comments are the most eloquent synopsis of a non-believers credo that I have read to date. No absolutes, just great intuitive reasoning.

That thread has pretty much run it's course. His words made me sit up and shout, finally someone has nailed exactly what needs be said. I've asked him to post his words here but don't know if he will.

So I'm acting as the messenger. Go check it out. You won't be disappointed.

Gotta love ya, Richard!

I'm enjoying the lull ... so restorative.

Can finally get a deep breath.

Later,

Kate

E. Favorite,
Yes, I know you were guessing at a diagnosis, rather than stating, asserting or pontificating, but that still doesn't make it acceptable to do. If an expert shouldn't argue against the ad hominem misuse of such psychobabble, why should lay people get away with starting it in the first place? It's getting worse: this morning there's a new snide implication of insanity, and a condescending suggestion to get some rest.

The only things worth reading in my last post are the first three requests. The rest of the post was just me having fun.

If you can't make heads or tails of somebody's statements, and the only conclusion you can come up with is that they're loopy, then just say "Okay, whatever," and go play with some of the other way-too-sane people here.

That's all I'm going to say on this subject. If the abuse continues I give up.

Linda Joy, do you find all this troubling?

Atheism: There's no future in it.

Soja- You talked of God becoming human in the form of Jesus. Please read "The Christ Conspriacy" by Acharya S. There is no historical evidence that a man named Jesus walked this earth and performed the deeds ascribed to him. In fact, every story about him can be traced to pagan stories and traditions surrounding gods like Horus, Mithras, Dionysis etc. They were sun gods, born of virgins, Dec. 25th, in caves or stables, attended by 3 magi( the three stars in Orion's belt), had 12 apostles (12 signs of the zodiac), performed miracles, communed with their baptized followers with bread and wine, were killed (hung on trees or crosses- the sign of the vernal equinox), rose from the dead, took the sins of the world away and will return someday to take their followers to heaven. These Greek, Egyptian and Roman gods were all worshipped for thousands of years before the claimed life of Jesus and actively worshipped in the area where Jesus was supposed to have lived during his supposed lifetime. The early Gnostics and later, the Church, cobbled together all this mythology in an effort to form one religion associated with the government of Rome. In other words, today's Christians are celebrating and worshipping a continuation of old pagan/astrological religions. Some food for thought- eh?

Soja John Thaikattil wrote: "Examples like Einstein and Newton, and many others like them who believed in God, prove that IQ is not inversely proportional to religious belief. Einstein claimed that some of best scientists he knew believed in God, even if their concept of God was more intellectual compared to the ordinary man."

Einstein was, in fact, an atheist. His frequent use of the word 'God' was, for the most part, metaphorical. For example, his oft quoted expression "God does not play dice with the universe" has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of diety... it was his colorful and concise way of expressing his displeasure with the idea that randomness plays a role in the underpinnings of the world (... the universe ... reality). Religious people point to that quote, and claim it proves that Einstein believed in god. Nothing could be further from the truth:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."   ~ Albert Einstein

Your statement that "Examples like Einstein and Newton, and many others like them who believed in God, prove that IQ is not inversely proportional to religious belief" is a bit of a red herring... a 'strawman argument'. Nobody has asserted that "IQ is inversely proportional to religious belief." Rather, it has been asserted that over 40 studies, conducted over the past 80 years have revealed a statistically significant inverse relationship between intelligence and religiosity. In other words, the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to be religious... statistically speaking. That is distinctly different from the statement which you presented, and it does not discount the fact that some highly intelligent people happen to be religious.

Welcome back from your mystical vision quest, Mr. Harris. Had a chance to examine that "scientific data" on reincarnation yet?

We're still waiting for Mr. Harris's reply at AlterNet as to why this "atheist" insists, in numerous public appearances, that there are compelling "spooky stories" suggesting reincarnation.

"Spooky?" Is this rational thought or the Munsters?

Excerpt:

"And those toddlers! In his response Harris clings tenaciously to the chance there really might be an outbreak of Bengali moppets speaking in tongues. Like a Bible flood scientist, he repeatedly insists that things for which there is zero evidence are "interesting," but won't dismiss them. If there's compelling data for eternal souls, that should be the most urgent subject of study possible, as slain "Islamofascists" could stalk us from beyond the grave, so I don't understand his apathy.

"Also, Harris oughtn't claim to be provocative when the steady creep towards cruelty and superstition in America is anything but taboo. In our conversation, Harris showed disarming gusto for smearing fake menstrual blood on detainees -- 'It's not torture,' he said -- and flirted with religious job discrimination. I left these out of the article for balance.

"I'm also waiting for an explanation of what this "End Of Faith" excerpt means: "Indeed, the future looks like the past ... We may live to see the technological perfection of all the visionary strands of traditional mysticism: shamanism, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Hermetism and its magical Renaissance spawn (Hermeticism) and all the other Byzantine paths whereby man has sought the Other in every guise of its conception. But all these approaches to spirituality are born of a longing for esoteric knowledge and a desire to excavate ... the mind -- in dreams, in trance, in psychedelic swoon -- in search for the sacred (p. 290)."

"Addled by this solipsism, Harris even misuses statistics in a way normally associated with hate sites like Stormfront.org, suggesting that a 70 percent rate (it's 50, actually) of Muslims in French jails means Muslims themselves are a crime wave.

"The New York Times has even run a piece detailing whether it's OK with Harris to have a Christmas tree. Why do the British get the real atheist, Richard Dawkins, while we get one who might as well be the Duke from Huckleberry Finn?"

I was “guessing” at a diagnosis – not making one, or discounting others mentioned.

Your recent response to me seems like an example of what you wrote in an earlier post:

“I have been known to slice people to ribbons on this website. I can be very good at it, but I’m no longer proud of it.”

I think you’re very good at it, too and suggest you more frequently try a middle ground approach - neither overly mean nor overly nice.

To my post on 9 January 2007 2:13 AM, Janine commented that I had not actually responded appropriately to Sam Harris’ secular spiritual experience. Hence this addendum, even though there is a risk of repeating myself.

I’m not a spiritual master to make any real comment about Sam Harris’ experience. A spiritual experience is so very personal and known in its reality and depth only to the one who has made the experience. Any attempt at describing it always brings difficulties and falls short of the mark. Any attempt for another person understanding it is even more difficult, especially if the other person has not had a similar experience. I can merely venture to say that Harris’ description sounds similar to Jiddu Krishnamurthy’s teaching – JK’s description of truth as pathless land, without religious belief and dogma. The vocabulary may be different, but the message sounds essentially the same. Mystics from all religions throughout the ages have used different vocabulary to explain the same experience. On closer examination one will find that the paths of Zen Buddhism, Vedanta, Raja Yoga, are all essentially similar to J Krishnamurthy's teaching in its essence, although JK does not advocate a Guru or teacher to learn meditation from and provide guidance along the spiritual journey. What all of them have in common is that, including the state described by Harris is achieved through inquiry, and bringing the mind to stillness and silence through meditation. The goal is to reach a state of love, compassion and selflessness. There is a simple litmus test to measure the quality of the experience – an increasing expression of real love, compassion, selflessness, in the actions of the person concerned. It must be remembered however that such a path of inquiry and silence of the mind without any image or deity is suited only for an intellectual inquiring mind.

Mr Harris has rightly concluded “I believe that most people are interested in spiritual life, whether they realize it or not. On the question of how to be most happy, the contemplative life has some important insights to offer.”

God does not deny the experience of Himself to anyone. God does not reserve such knowledge of Himself only to an intellectual inquiring mind. One can combine devotion to a personal God with meditation and reach the same level of love, compassion and selflessness. In the case of the inquiring mind knowledge is expected to lead to love. But in the case of devotion, love comes first, knowledge comes later.

Even those who do not meditate still have access to the same God experience, as long as they involved their whole being in whatever practice they choose to help them break out of their little self or false ego.

I wish to make some modification to a statement I made in the above mentioned post: “Throughout history simple people have reached great heights of spiritual insights and probably many of them would not have qualified to be great scientists.” Maybe I’m completely wrong to make such an assumption. Sages and seers from all religions, many of whom were spiritual geniuses, may have found science a child’s play, if they had chosen to go down that path. However they were just as preoccupied with their search for God as scientists are in their search to explain the physical world. So it is not possible to make a judgement about the intellectual capacity of a spiritual genius to do science. Examples like Einstein and Newton, and many others like them who believed in God, prove that IQ is not inversely proportional to religious belief. Einstein claimed that some of best scientists he knew believed in God, even if their concept of God was more intellectual compared to the ordinary man. The primitive folks sensed the spirit of God in nature without any knowledge of science, whereas Einstein and scientists like him come to the conclusion about God based on their scientific experience. Are they speaking of two different Gods? No. They are expressing the same reality in two different ways. How each human being articulates his experience of God depends on his mental and verbal capacities. But that does not mean those who are not articulating it with the sophistication of a scientist, is having less of an experience of God.

The discussion on this thread is proving that atheists come in all sorts of shapes and forms and with varying degrees of un-belief, just as believers come in all sorts of shapes and qualities of belief. All are on a lifelong journey, solet us make this meeting an opportunity to learn something of each other, if not something from each other. Believers and non-believers are worthy of equal respect. We are merely looking at the world from different perspectives, based on our individual experiences. It is as simple as that.

Soja John Thaikattil
Syndey, Australia

Yo, Timmy, et al

Can you put a fork in your marathon jabber for a day? There's hardly any oxygen left for the rest of us to breath. Howzabout this Sunday--a day of rest. Everything needs a sabbath, even this forum. So get your last jabs in today, Saturday, and let's have a frabjous day tomorrow.

Muchas gracias,
Kate

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought--
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One two! One two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Lewis Carroll

Wow, some interesting posts. Since it’s a gray day here with no distractions, here goes.

1) Said Duckphup:
“Well, guess what? NOBODY knows ANY absolute 'truth' pertaining to objective reality. (The ONLY thing we an say with any certainty about objective reality is that it is 'non-local', as revealed by Bell's Theorem.) Essentially, then, a 'belief' is a delusion, which is sustained by 'faith'... wishful, or magical, thinking. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what IS.”
(January 12, 2007 5:13 PM)

Sorry, but this can’t stand. If the “NOBODY” claim is true, it’s absolute. Maybe we can know absolute truths, but maybe they become trivial to the extent that they’re absolute. If the law of contradiction is granted as absolute, then it becomes trivial in the sense that it regulates what we allow ourselves to assert. Similarly, the “NOBODY” claim would become trivial in the sense that we would simply refuse to grant absoluteness to any other claim, however solid.

It is curious that you should single out quantum nonlocality, of all things, as certain. A hundred years ago, a poll of scentists would have shown unanimous belief that nonlocality was false (Einstein: “spukhafte Fernwirkung” – spooky action at a distance). Bell’s theorem is interesting, but it took some very careful experimental testing before we all agreed to accept it as certain. And it is certain only in the sense that the overall picture conjured up by quantum mechanics, for all its paradoxical weirdness, is the best we can do to explain the amazingly exact technical applicability of the laws of quantum mechanics.

The problem I have with all this talk about absoluteness is that our own standpoint, relative to which all claims of truth must be evaluated, cannot be elevated too far without absurdity. We can bootstrap toward infinity, but we can’t get there, or at least not that easily. Whatever platform we stand on is absolute for us. Because we are finite beings (or rather to the extent that we are finite beings, given that we might sometimes be mere channels for an infinite agent, for example an angel who tells us what to write), we are all fundamentalists about something, somewhere in our conceptual schemes. We may be arrogant enough to regard that something as known, but more often it will be wiser to admit to mere belief. I say we better get used to that fact, and try to make the practical consequences bearable.

2) Said Duckphup:
“I coined my own definition of 'metaphysics': "The blind leading the stupid into the unknown on a quest for the unfathomable." … My definition is intended as a reminder to myself to keep things in context and in perspective, and not to take myself too seriously.”
(January 12, 2007 6:14 PM)

Good, and well said. But we are in what the Germans call Zugzwang, which is a term in chess for the situation where you have to make a move. We can’t live with metaphysics, but we can’t live without it either. Any background beliefs, however trivial they may seem, to shore up our practical beliefs, both in everyday life and in scientific pursuits, add up in effect to a metaphysical system, which may of course be more or less systematic. I say we do better to look at the metaphysics and try to tidy it up, rather than just look away and hope it will somehow sort itself out.

3) Said Timmy:
“And don't write a book about the meaning of a word that I used in everyday speak, so that you can imply that I meant something that you can actually argue with. You play semantic games with your arguments that distract from the meaning of what somebody is trying to say.”
(January 12, 2007 6:17 PM)

Why not? Sounds like fun to me! Seriously, the ordinary language we use every day is good enough for ordinary activities, but here we are on a more rigorous quest. The course of the discussion makes it abundantly clear that precise use of words and attention to getting clear about what they really mean is essential, or we melt down into the sort of greeting-card or song-lyric sentimentalism that you can express so well. This is a challenging task we have here, trying to prepare the ground sufficiently to enable Sam’s wise words (remember them?) on selfless consciousness to take root.

4) Said Timmy:
“So just like the man who came up with quantum physics had to imagine it before he could discover it, we will probably have to imagine everything that we will discover in the future.”
(January 12, 2007 10:22 PM)

Well, there wasn’t “a man” who imagined it all, and that was the problem! It was a committee effort, and no-one really put it all together into a perfected form. Many people see a lot of the story as still up for grabs, in the sense that a new picture could conceivably, for all we know, make the whole theory make much better sense than it seems to make so far. So your idea that we will have to imagine the future before we can experience it is not persuasive. Some futures descend upon us willy-nilly, whether we like them or not. As Isidor Rabi said when someone discovered the muon, “Who ordered that?”

5) Said Pam:
“What I am, philosophically speaking, is a naturalist. Here is that definition: "Naturalism (philosophy), any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural, are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses. Metaphysical naturalism, the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity. Methodological naturalism is the belief that the natural sciences are a proper way to study the world. Humanistic naturalism, an outlook that places the emphasis upon a naturalism based upon scientific reasoning."”
(January 13, 2007 1:42 AM)

Well said, Pam. This is a position worth defending.

Yeah Timmy, you’ve been brilliant. How lucky we all are to bear witness to your staggering intellect.

News flash pal: between all your post-modern new age clap trap about “some purpose for it all that we have not even imagined yet” and paying lip service to the basic tenets of atheism, your own personal version of what is true vs. empirical fidelity to what we actually do know appears hopelessly at odds. Moreover, you seem positively smug about straddling the 50-yard line and as one of the posters above noted, your propensity for moving the goal post when the contradictions in your own words is pointed out to you is annoying. Get over yourself.

Mad props for at least figuring out that the Christian version of God is crap, but you’re a long way from being an atheist. You have an interest in the subject matter, which is a good thing. However, you need a little work keeping the train on the tracks. Good luck!!

Timmy,

Seems like we were in violent agreement all along then.

"I don't seek one. I am not a scientist. How could I find it? It's a science thing."

>>That hasn't stopped most of the human race.

"I can only imagine what it might be if one is ever found.I doubt it ever will be.Cause there probably isn't one. But I am a science fiction fan. So I love to imagine things like that."

>>ditto.

But I have no problem with people who do seek a higher meaning.Unless they claim to have found one and have no empirical or scientific evidence to back it up.

>> Here we differ a bit, I do have a problem them as described in past posts. believing there is one and looking for it bothers me. A personal problem perhaps.

Boy what a day.

I spent half the day telling a Christian to keep his religion out of my government or I will continue to verbally abuse his ridiculous, repulsive fairy tale all day every day, 24/7.

And then of course I had to defend myself from the atheists.

I think the last time I looked in the mirror I must have accidentally stepped through it.

Good night.
Timmy says
Science bless us, everyone.

Gad,

I don't seek one. I am not a scientist. How could I find it?
It's a science thing.
I can only imagine what it might be if one is ever found.
I doubt it ever will be.
Cause there probably isn't one.
But I am a science fiction fan.
So I love to imagine things like that.

But I have no problem with people who do seek a higher meaning.
Unless they claim to have found one and have no empirical or scientific evidence to back it up.

E. Favorite,
You said,
"Being absolute again! Maybe Timmy’s not schizo or anything else (my guess is O-C), but I think I’m safe in saying that you can’t make a reliable differential diagnosis based on this limited on-line input. (You’re not Bill Frist, are you?)"

Soooo, you feel safe to say that I can't debunk a cocktail-party diagnosis based solely on what we all see written here, but in the same breath you also feel safe enough to guess at O-C as a diagnosis of your own. And of course let's not forget Pam's original diagnosis of "schizo" based on the same limited medium. For some reason that's okay to say, as well as all the other more vague implications of "you're nuts" flying around whenever somebody can't understand somebody else. But when I object to the stupid and hurtful misuse of a psychological term, I'm being "absolute," whatever the hell that is.

Then let me re-phrase what my statement should have been to Timmy, to see if I can get it to pass your vaunted "non-absolute test: (Imagine this said in a deep, TV doctor kind of voice)

Timmy, Pam said to you, "Timmy, you're starting to sound seriously schizo." In the interest of keeping this discussion from spiraling down further than it already has, as a licensed psychotherapist, who is qualified to make diagnoses of psychiatric disorders, in my most humble and quite possibly incorrect opinion, given the very limited nature of this on-line, typed-only mode of communication, I have not read anything in your posts that would suggest to me that you meet any of the criteria set forth by the American Psychiatric Association in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, or DSM-IV-TR, for Schizophrenia, Schizophreneform Disorder, Schizotypal Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder or Schizo-frikkin' anything else. Keep in mind please, Timmy, that I could be wrong, and maybe you're as nutty as a fruitcake.

Fortunately I didn't say any of that, because it would have been a waste of time and bandwidth. How about instead I set forth a few requests:
Everybody please,
Stop saying or implying "you're crazy" when you just don't understand someone. Try using some humility and say, "I don't understand."
Stop looking for opportunities to look, sound and feel superior at the expense of learning something, and at the expense of insulting someone else. Maybe, just maybe the person you think is a lunatic has a point. Even a broken clock is right twice every day.
Stop arguing like lawyers over the definitions of words and go for understanding instead.
Stop arrogantly saying or implying that someone else is being arrogant.
Stop absolutely accusing others of being absolute, whatever the hell that is.

Now, if any of you don't think you've been doing any of that, don't worry about it, I didn't mean you. And if you don't think anybody else has been doing any of that either, don't worry about it, I didn't mean any of them either. And if any of you think that I've been doing any of that, well maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, and maybe you're something other than right or wrong, and to any of those possibilities I can only say, "Sorry," or "Screw you," or "What the hell are you talking about," or "Huh?" or something that'll come up spontaneously because I either had an enlightenment experience or a stroke while floundering around in all of this silly, silly crap.

And if you think I've completely lost it, you can think what you like but you're probably not qualified and besides nobody can make a diagnosis over a blog, even though everybody's doing it, and besides, you're the ones spending all your time reading my babbling inanities, so how sane are you, so there. Nyaaaaah!

Oh yeah: No, I'm not Bill Frist, smarty pants, if I was Bill Frist I'd say so, you'd see "Bill Frist" at the top of this stupendous waste of electrons. He may be a complete jerk, but at least he's got better things to do than goof around on a blog with the likes of us.

I feel much better now. Thank you.

anony,

I have no problem conversing with Bruce Burleson. He's a Christian. Probably not the same as you though. It's really hard to find two Christians who believe the same thing these days. What are there, like a hundred sects?
Boy, what a mixed up word this divine Jesus guy had.
I mean this is a new argument for me.
I though I'd heard them all but you are the first Christian to throw this one at me, or anyone else on this thread.
Challenging that the principles in the Bible are not dogma.
Never heard it before.

But there is clearly no other atheist on this thread who is more open to having a civil conversation with a believer than I, so if you'd like to start one, here I am.

Timmy,

You have a lot of energy, more than me I'll give you that.

OK, last time for me. "I" think [rightly or wrongly] that you IMPLY things in what you write that you say you are against. Like, that imagining a higher purpose is not only OK, but good, because science could find one tomorrow which we would never have found if we never imagined it was possible before hand. This implies to me that you are looking for a higher purpose.......... I imagine about what fantastic things we will do, invent and find tomorrow all the time, just never in respect to a higher purpose. If we stumble across one one day, well thats that, but I do not purposely look for one, and have a problem with those who do.

There is no law that says we have to agree on every point. But if this is all a misunderstanding on my part of what you were stating, and you completely agree with me on my view, then it's all good. ;)

Timmy,

Obviously you are utterly and entirely free to believe, if you wish, that dogma means "flying spaghetti monster" or "purple unicorn" or whatever else flatters your prejudices and enhances your self-worth.

The question is, do you wish to be able to communicate with another human being? Do wish to be persuasive? Do you wish to come across as having the foggiest idea what you're talking about? Or in the end is nurturing your prejudices what's most important to you?

People of Atheism, I point out to you, a heretic among us.
His name is Timmy.
I have caught him imagining of a higher meaning than that which science has presented us. Imagining!
He uses our science and twists it to try and make his imaginings plausible.
He uses the scientific fact that energy is matter and we are all stardust to make you think that his imaginations are rational.
He uses the fact that we currently only use only 10 percent of our brains to make you think that there may be things that we can not even imagine yet.
He questions the certainty that all of this started with the big bang and means nothing.
Science Damn him.
Science damn him all to black hole.
He is not one of us.
His thoughts are dangerous.

Gad,

I agree with every word you said. Why do you say it like I don't?

Quotation marks. I need quotation marks from both you and Pam to justify any of the beliefs you are both implying that I have.
It's really getting annoying.

Quotation marks, both of you. Put up or shut up.

WM's post Jan 12 4:54.
Do you disagree with any of that?
That's me. He says it better.

Pam,

You are definitely different that the words you put in my mouth.

I say higher meaning.
You tell me I said Higher power, and then spend your whole time arguing against the higher power thing that I didn't say.

And I didn't say I believed in a higher meaning, just that there could be one that we have not even imagined.
I don't imagine it would have anything to do with a deity of any kind. But again, you imply that I did.
Makes you feel smart or something.

Before television was invented, you would have laughed at anyone who imagined pictures flying through the sky.
You don't have much of an imagination.

As far as, there is no Why?
I have never met anyone like you.
You've never wondered why the universe is here? Really?
Absolutely, suspiciously bizarre.
But okay. Ask 10 of your friends if they've ever wondered that. Even just once.
I think that if you do this experiment honestly you will find that you are an anomoly.

Anyway, I do not believe any of the things that you have accused me of believing nor did I say that I did.
If you are that desperate for an argument that you need to put words into my mouth so you can disagree with me, well, there's a fellow named Jason Bradfield who likes to ague like that. And unlike me, He really is not on your side.

As for the possibility of a higher meaning. I can't explain it any better than WM does in his post on Jan 12 @ 4:54pm.

If you disagree with anything in there, you disagree with me.
If you don't disagree with anything that WM says in that post, then you don't disagree with me.
You are just putting your own meaning on my words to argue with.

I don't believe in anything supernatural.
But like I said, before television, flying pictures would have seemed like a very superrnatural idea.
Turns out it's quite natural.
I'm the kind of guy who would have imagined it.
You are not.
You would have laughed.

Get out your quotation marks and show me where I said that I believe any of the things you have accused me of.

And read WM's post Jan 12, 4:54
I wish I could have expressed that point so well.

Timmy,

"And for more imaginations about the possibility of a creator of our universe. Check out this latest scientific theory."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545246

Yes, I read stuff like this all the time. This stuff is fun to think about and may even be possible one day. But it in no way has any mystical attributes [higher purpose]. In fact in this example it is the opposite, the search for a higher purpose in the designer universe ends with an alien who made the universe because he thought it would be cool to say he made one. That's a pretty disappointing higher purpose..... But I would take it over a nasty God who whats to torture me for eternity over sex or some other such thing.

Nor would this solve the "why are we here" for the designer universe folks, because the next question is, Ok I live in a designer universe, but where did the designer come from? And we are in an infinite regress. But you can be sure that someone in the designer universe will say, "he always was and will always be", "he is the uncaused cause", He is God and he has a higher purpose for us that he has revealed to me in a dream( which is necessary since the designer in the article cannot communicate with his creation, so they will have to assume [imagine] what his will and intentions are) and if we follow his will we will be one with in the end............

Timmy wrote:
"Higher meaning is the answer to the question, 'Why?'
You have an answer for 'how.'
Do you have an answer for 'why?'
If you do, please share.
Do you really think that there is nothing more to discover about the universe that might give meaning to life, beyond what we currently know?
Not God.
But some purpose for it all that we have not even imagined yet?"

Sorry, Timmy, but IMO all of the above is religious thinking. I don't believe that there is a reason why, and it would never occur to me to even ask the question. "Meaning"? "Purpose"? Whose?

That's why I said you were sounding schizo (and no, I didn't mean in the clinical sense). You seem to be coming at us from two different directions. You insist that you don't believe in God (and I believe you), but then you start asking about meaning and purpose, and to me, this is religious language - the language of someone who believes in a higher power - else from whence does this ultimate purpose emanate? It makes me think that you aren't finished working out your issues.

You said that I was a nihilist - I'm not. Here is a definition:
"Nihilism is a philosophical position, often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche. Nihilism argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other."

I disagree that secular ethics are impossible and that no action is preferable to any other. I just think that ethics come from a source other than a diety.

What I am, philosophically speaking, is a naturalist. Here is that definition:
"Naturalism (philosophy), any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural, are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses
Metaphysical naturalism, the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity.
Methodological naturalism is the belief that the natural sciences are a proper way to study the world.
Humanistic naturalism, an outlook that places the emphasis upon a naturalism based upon scientific reasoning."

I didn't disagree with you when you were arguing for different approaches for different types of religious people, although a part of me is distinctly Duckphupian; but when you got into this higher meaning thing, you lost me fast.

Greg,

An individual's opinion is not dogma no matter how forceful the delivery.
I have not laid down a set of principles that are an incontrovertible truth, for all to live by.
I belong to no religion or organization that seeks to do so.
I am rejecting just that.
I don't claim to know the creator of the universe?

You said something, and yet you didn't say anything at all.
Yet another who needs to look up dogma in the dictionary before using it in a sentence.

And if you're still hung up on the Bible's definition of dogma, as opposed to societies definition of dogma, just like you're hung up on the bible's version of marriage, as opposed to societies version of marriage, then I'll word it like this.
Keep all of your Christian crap out of my government.

Besides, why would you try and hold me to the Bible's definition of dogma, or your definition of dogma?
What happened to that pluralistic society you said we lived in where people keep their religion to themselves.
You're not at church. Please speak by societies definition of words here.

It seems someone out there is pretty dogmatic in their approach towards dogma. The mirror once again reflects!

Anony,

Mormons aren't Christians?
Quakers aren't Christians?
Why do you need to be deceptive? Is your point weak?
How many scientologists are there in government?
Zero atheists.
If you think that the united states government is not under Christian control you are in denial.

The Bible isn't dogma?
If the Divinity of Jesus is dogma,
Then all principles in the Bible, like the kill the fags principle, are dogma.

And you are joking if you think I'm buying this idea of the flock having a say in the dogma of the church. If you go to church, your morals are dictated to you.

You deny all you want that "kill the fags" is not Christian dogma.
It is. And it is the only reason that George Bush is president. Your religious leaders will keep their dogma out of my government or I will verbaly bash their ridiculous, repulsive, and delusional fairy tale, at the top of my lungs. All day long. 24/7.

No one shares your soft definition of dogma. It's a ruse.
You are in denial.

I love my friend Bruce Burleson. He is a Christian who cares about the interference of his faith in the lives of others.

You defend bad things and deny their effect.
I will not be soft with you.
Don't quote scriptures to me.
They mean absolutely nothing to me.
They are dogma.

Moving the goalposts when you're proved wrong is bad form. There's a lot of ground between "must be Christian" to "must not be snarky atheist". In any event, Unitarians and Scientologists are not Abrahamic. And there are about 15 Mormons, however you'd like to classify them.

Not sure what your other question is. If you're asking, "Can one particular verse in the Bible constitute a dogma?", the answer is NO, a dogma is a truth revealed through scripture and tradition, formulated or defined by the Church and proposed to the faithful. E.g., Christ's divinity is a dogma. One line of Scripture is not a dogma.

E. Favorite

You've never met anyone less O C than me.

Tell me, how does your atheism differ from mine?

Anony

Thank you for pointing out that they are all believers in the one true God of the Abrahamic faiths.

You forgot one very important statistic.
Zero atheists.
Can't get elected if you admit to that.

And what about the gay marriage Bible dogma thing?

No answer for that?

Okay Gad we're going to get it here, I can feel it.

I never said there was a higher purpose.
This is why spaghetti does not apply.
I said, their may be a higher purpose and it's nice to imagine what it might be if there is one.

Then you said no there isn't one

WM and I said prove that there isn't one.
You said spaghetti monster which only applies if I said there was one but I said "there may be"
And I did not imply that there "must be one" if you can not prove that there isn't one.
Only that, so long as you can not prove that there isn't one, then there "may be"

Which is what you just said
You said:
"There may be a "higher purpose" to life but there is no evidence to support it."

You said it. "There may be."

That's all I ever said.
There also may not be.
We don't know.

So just like the man who came up with quantum physics had to imagine it before he could discover it, we will probably have to imagine everything that we will discover in the future.
It is nothing but a good thing to imagine what might be.

Homo-sapiens are due for an evolution. We only use ten percent of our brains. Energy is matter. Quantum physics. Multi universe. String theory.........
If you think you can imagine what we will discover next, you might be that next evolution.

Imagination is what most separates us from the animals.

And for more imaginations about the possibility of a creator of our universe. Check out this latest scientific theory.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545246

Imagine.

"How about, you can't get elected in this country if you are not a Christian?"

Don't let facts get in the way, but: Thirteen percent of the U.S. Senate is Jewish, as is seven percent of the U.S. House (versus two percent of the overall population). In 2000, a Jew won the popular vote for vice president. There is now a Muslim in Congress, and there are Quakers, Unitarians, a Scientologist and some who decline to say. There have been four Unitarian and two Quaker presidents.

Richard Wade:

You say, ”You are not "schizo." I'm actually qualified to make that diagnosis, and you're not even close. You're also none of the other labels tossed around here.”

Being absolute again! Maybe Timmy’s not schizo or anything else (my guess is O-C), but I think I’m safe in saying that you can’t make a reliable differential diagnosis based on this limited on-line input. (You’re not Bill Frist, are you?)

Then:

“At the risk of sounding "absolute," I don't think anyone here has it all 100% sorted out yet within ourselves. Everybody's got to find their own point of balance with these issues, and it keeps shifting as we learn from new experiences.”

Bravo, you passed the E. Favorite “non- absolute” test. Very well stated, and well worth stating – we are indeed diligently muddling through. Thank all of you so much for the time spent and ideas shared.

WM,

Thank you again for your last post. It was exactly what I wanted to say.

I don't think we differ on the harmlessness of soft believers.
I believe that they are harmful in that their answer to the religion question on the census form lends moral and political support to all Christian groups and Christianity as a whole.

I think that the raising of children into faith is a big concern, and unfortunately not an option really if you are faithful. You would see no harm in telling your child the certainty of your beliefs at a very young age, if you believe fully. This is a problem.

But I also think that the soft believers are our best ally in this battle against the force of the faith as a whole. It's my "evolution not revolution" thing.

When I say that soft believers are harmless, I mean relatively speaking.
Bruce is not our immediate problem. (Maybe the word immediate here helps)
Pat Robertson is part of our immediate problem.
Bruce can help if we are nice about it.
So I am nice about it.

I, like all atheists, do feel that all of this religion we see today will be a thing for the history books in the coming generations. It will go the way of Paganism and all other primitive dogmatic beliefs.

On how we get there, there seems to be many schools of thought.

Sure is interesting I'll tell you that.
I spent the day fighting with atheists and believers at the same time from the middle. Craziness.

I piped in to tell DuckPhup that he was fighting the wrong battle, and now he's really fighting the wrong battle. He's fighting me. I'd love to know his rationale for pegging me as the problem all of a sudden.
I definitely am harmless.

I don't want to sidetrack the conversation with politics, or to beat a dead horse on dogma, but I'll give it one more try.

In a religious context, "dogma" is a technical term with a specific meaning. You can't just use it to mean what you want, anymore than you would a scientific term.

A dogma is formulated, defined or proposed by a church, based on both scripture and tradition. Not everything in the Bible is proposed as dogma, and not all church teaching is dogmatic. A dogmatic church does not regard scripture as the only source of revelation, and generally does not interpret scripture literally.

A fundamentalist church, or other church that accepts scripture alone and rejects tradition, REJECTS dogmatism. Biblical inerrancy and literalism are the OPPOSITE of dogma. Those who follow biblical inerrancy and literalism HATE dogma, which they regard as "unbiblical".

Capisce?

Dear Soja,

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to me in such a thoughtful and complete way. You are at peace … it flows from every sentence.

And that is where we meet, for I am at peace, too. I remain a skeptic, however, for certainly if someone from the 25th century listened in to this forum they would surely scratch their heads and wonder how we could have thought some of our thoughts. But we, along with this universe and its mysterious force, are still evolving so I know that I do not know.

When I left the god of my childhood and its church and dogma, I set out on the pathless land that is truth (Krishamurti). A quote that I used as an inscription for a poem I wrote at this early stage of my spiritual development was Martin Luther’s “A man must do his own believing, as he must do his own dying.” It is my motto.

Today my interest lies in the discussion of a still evolving universe, including us and the creative force sustaining it all. What a radical idea!!! You can read more about this in the quarterly magazine “What is Enlightenment,” which I believe is online.

I would be interested in hearing a bit more about your time in the Dom Bede Griffiths’ ashram in India. When shall we see another like him? Monday here in the old U.S.A. we celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King, another soul who had pretty much died to ego, and then died physically because of that. And Jesus, of the Beatitudes and my personal favorite, “Sell all you have, and come follow me!” Revelation and the prophets continue to this day.

I wish you well in all you put your hand to.

Kate

Timmy,

"As for the flying spaghetti monster. ??????
This is used for someone who is trying to make you prove that a creature they invented does not exist."

No, it is used to say that just because you can't prove that something doesn't exist that does not make it real. e.g. just because I can't prove there is no "higher purpose" to life does not make it real. There may be a "higher purpose" to life but there is no evidence to support it.

"Why are we here? Remains a mystery. If you have the answer, please share. The world is waiting."

Again you imply that if I don't have the answer, then that has a special meaning. It doesn't.

We seem to be like water and oil, even with an atheist emulsifier we can't mix.

Anony,

Double Arggh.

Really?
The Bible is not a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true?
I'm going to have to look into this Christianity thing and read the Bible yet again because I thought that's exactly what it is.
The first definition of Dogma in the dictionary could also be the definition of the Bible.

more than 98 percent of the elected officials in this country including the president are Christian.
George W Bush would not be president if not for the rallying of Christian support over the gay marriage issue, and the abortion issue, and a return to good moral (Bible moral) values after Janet Jackson whipped her nipple out at the superbowl.
Now we have a president who is destroying this country's reputation and creating a situation where literal jihadists are more dangerous than ever because Christians don't want fags to get married. Because of this verse in the Bible.
Here is dogma from the Bible in our lives.
Lev 20:13
13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Is that specific enough for you?

How about, you can't get elected in this country if you are not a Christian?

Arggh!

Timmy, I think we’re mostly on the same page (though I do have a few quibbles with things like exactly how harmless some believers are) … I’m not sure how some of the people here are getting what they are out of your posts. I’ve been feeling like I must be reading different posts. I must have different filters.

Re Anonymous’s comments on dogma: Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of dogma (you can look it up on the web at m-w.com):
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

It seems to me that the Christian Bible is full of dogma (points of view or tenets put forth as authorative without adequate grounds) per definition 1 and that church doctrine is by definition dogma per definition 2. As I expected before I looked it up, based on common usage.

I don't have time right now to go into how Christian and Biblical dogma are affecting U.S. politics, but I'll try to get to it later if nobody else addresses it first.

Arggh, the Bible is not "dogma" (that word again), but put that aside.

"The Bible is in our politics. Are you cool with that?" — I don't share the perception that our politics are unduly influenced by "The Bible", but I'd need to know the context (i.e., specific issues).

"Christian dogma is frighteningly powerful in American politics. The world's biggest super power.
Is this not scary to you?" — Which Christian dogma do you mean? Specifically what leads you to believe it is "powerful", and why on earth is that scary?

Anony

The Bible is religious dogma.
The Bible is in our politics.
Are you cool with that?
Earlier you tried to insinuate that we live in a society where no one's dogma is pushed on others.
Christian dogma is frighteningly powerful in American politics.
The world's biggest super power.

Is this not scary to you?

Gad,

You will need to use some quotation marks from my previous posts to show me where I came even close to implying that I believed in a higher power.
Until you do, I stand by my assertion that your fear of certain words caused you to miss my obvious assertion that I believed nothing of the sort.

As for the flying spaghetti monster. ??????
This is used for someone who is trying to make you prove that a creature they invented does not exist.

I have posed no creature to you.

Can you imagine, before the discovery of the telegraph, someone talking about the idea that maybe matter is energy, and I wonder if there is an alternate universe (a la Quantum Physics)
If someone told them, that is not possible.
And they said: prove it's not possible
And then they were thrown the flying spaghetti monster scenario to prove that this preposterous postulation is not possible.
Well they would have this quantum physics dreamer stumped then according to your argument.

You can't prove that it's not possible.
That doesn't mean that it is possible.
Just that our tiny brains, of which we only use ten percent of, can not imagine what it would be if it were possible.

Why are we here? Remains a mystery. If you have the answer, please share. The world is waiting.

Tim says, "There is nothing about dogma that is not about controlling people's morals and spirituality. It aims to do that because that's what it is."

But that is not what it is, as I've tried patiently to explain. You are misusing the word because you don't know what it means.

And where you got the idea that I was defending fundamentalists is just beyond me.

Clearly we're not communicating. I take responsibility for not making myself clearer, but frankly I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about at this point. Peace.

All,

I read Sam's book, then signed up at his website, got the email for this article, saw the comment thread, thought it looked interesting, and joined in to try my hand at it.

Is this how other people got here? After this thread dies out (if it does),does, everyone wait for the next article to come out and start the process over? Or is this a 24/7 ongoing kind of thing?

Anony,

I take no offense. But boy oh boy are we in different corners.
If you were defending one's right to faith I would be with you, but you seem to be defending dogma and fundamentalists and I just can't accept any defense for those two things. There is nothing about dogma that is not about controlling people's morals and spirituality. It aims to do that because that's what it is.

You said:
"We have a religiously plural society in which no one is compelled to accept any particular dogma"
That's a joke. There isn't a Christian person in this country who doesn't point to the "under God" in the American constitution to give power to their book in the political process.
That pluralistic society that you claim we have is one that I am fighting for but we are a long way from getting the Christian God out of our politics.

I fear we are too far apart to even discuss, but I will remain open.
It's hilarious. DuckPhup thinks I'm one of you.
lol

I bought twelve copies of your book to give to my friends for x-mas, I have a friend who is an administrator at a local hospital. He had the book on his desk when one of the doctors walked in. He stated : " I read that, good book, but sometimes I want to shake the author and tell him to tone it down a little" I am here to tell you don't tone it down, sounds to me he missed the whole point of the book. The human majority walks around , unaware of that blind spot and in turn clokes the ambitions of the religious extremists...YOU HAVE A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE! KEEP IT UP! THANK YOU! p.s. Isn't cool to give an atheist book for Christmas!

Timmy,

OK, now I'm confused..... It sure seemed to me that you were stating a belief in a type of agent of the mind and a higher purpose of life beyond what we know. It also seemed to me that your definition of atheist was anyone who didn't believe in god and/or religious dogma, but could still have belief in the first two. None of that is compatible with my view of atheism [rightly or wrongly]. These are the things I find dangerous, seeds laying in wait for their opportunity to grow and spread.

If none of the above is what you were advocating, then we just got all hosed up on this somehow. In any case I enjoyed the opportunity to debate ideas with you very much.

P.S. On the question of "I can't prove there is no higher purpose to life" I default to Dawkins flying spaghetti monster or Russells flying teapot.

Tim,

I wasn't offended, just trying to be helpful. You're free to decide that precise language and accurate usage are unimportant for your purposes. My experience, however, is that they do promote understanding.

Contrasting dogma and democracy is like contrasting a fish and a bicycle. Makes no sense. We have a religiously plural society in which no one is compelled to accept any particular dogma, and a large segment, including fundamentalists, reject all dogma. All mainstream faith groups recognize at some level the individual's freedom to give or withhold his assent (although fundamentalists may threaten damnation).

Only fundamentalists believe that scripture is the sole source of revelation. Tradition is a source of revelation, as are reason and nature (science).

You ask why the Bible has not been revised, but of course (except for fundamentalists) it has been dramatically "revised" in last couple of hundred years based on scholarship, new translations, and the huge advance in our understanding of the natural world.

Gad,

I agree completely with your view of life.
How does anything that I said make me less of an atheist that you?
Please. Help me.

And please do it with out puting biblical definitions onto words, that I clearly stated I use in everyday speak.

How are we different?

Anonymous,

Thank you for your comment. It's funny, I'm trying to build a bridge and offending both sides.

Of course there are some softer definitions of dogma but they are still no where near as good as democracy.
We have democracy. Any step we take towards dogma is a step backwards. Any step we take away from dogma is a step forward.

Would you agree that the dogma of any one religion, should not hold any extra sway as an idea, because it comes from a holy book?

You said:
"In a religious context, a dogma is a particular truth that is "revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful."

Um... Really? The flock get a say on the dogma?
Why then, has the Bible not been revised in thousands of years?
Everyone just happens to agree on all of the dogma?

And fundamentalists might not congregate (although I'm not sure that goes for all fundamentalists)
But they follow the dogma of a holy book with a literalism that is dangerous if the book has thoughts like:
Deut 20:10-18
10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labour. 12If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. 16But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

There is nothing ironic about fundamentalists.
Just scary. Scary as hell.

TIMMY:

In my opinion you are talking in circles, and your getting mad at me for saying so and/or not thinking like you. I can't say it any better then PAM did and certainly not DuckPhup who is in a league of his own and on a level well above what I can do.

I am an atheist, I am against religion, I define religion as any structure, system or statement of beliefs that defines or attempts define a higher purpose of life in the universe then is supported or warranted by the evidence at hand. I am an existentialist.

Right or wrong this is my definition of my self, do you disagree that my post(s) are consistent with this definition?

You seem to think that imagination, fantasy, self love and deep feelings of love, joy, hope, happiness and the awe of the universe are incompatible with my self view, but you are very very wrong. I am one of the most awe struck by life, family loving, imaginative, fantasy crazed, D&D playing, RPG game junkies, Scif nut, movie buff, and beer fanatics your every likely to meet. I enjoy life every bit as much as the next person, the difference, I think, is that I have a clearly defined line between reality and fantasy and I know when I have crossed.

And no I am not putting any of my words into WM's mouth.

I laid out an example of the kind of spiritual imaginations that a person could have whilst still remaining an atheist.
I stand by that example. I think it stands in all that WM said.

You can choose if you like to jump all over those scary words that I used and try to force the biblical definition into my example so that you can make me sound "Schizo".
But that would make you a "Jason Bradfield" type of debater.
Especially since I went to great lengths to point out that I did not believe in any of this stuff, just that it was a nice thing to imagine.

I Believe in it as I believe in kindness.
Or change the word to cherish if you can't hear the word. "believe" without going straight to the biblical version.

I have faith in it as I have faith in my mother's love.

I know it's just biology, probably. But I can love it, and cherish it, and have faith in it, and not be delusional one bit.

Tim,

I applaud your advocacy for trying to communicate in a way that promotes mutual understanding to whatever degree that's possible. I'd suggest to some other participants that that approach just amounts to basic decency.

Along those lines, I wanted to get back to you on the meaning of the word "dogma", which in this discussion has been wildly abused and tortured beyond recognition. The operative definition seems to be something along the lines of "stubborn crazy irrationality" and lack of freedom.

Actual dictionary definitions include: "a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.; a system of principles or tenets; a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down."

In a religious context, a dogma is a particular truth that is "revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful." In and of itself, it does not and could not limit the individual's freedom to give or withhold his assent.

Finally, a huge irony that must be pointed out is that for the most part fundamentalists by definition explicitly REJECT the concept of dogma, because they have no hierarchy and emphasize autonomous congregations and individual conscience. So don't try telling a fundamentalist he's dogmatic. It's a nonsensical statement.

LOL

DuckPhup,

My response to all of your meaningless babble about nothing that I said or meant, is WM's most recent post.

To WM's post I say ditto.
Ditto Ditto Ditto

Couldn't have said it better myself. Obviously I didn't. I wish I could have.

I feel exactly how WM feels.
I believe nothing more that what WM believes.

Only people who put their own meanings of words into other people's mouths would have taken anything that I said, to mean anything that DuckPhup just wrote a bloody book about.

DuckPhup.
Show me where anything that I said goes beyond what WM just said and makes people who feel this way less of an atheist than you.
And don't write a book about the meaning of a word that I used in everyday speak, so that you can imply that I meant something that you can actually argue with.

You play semantic games with your arguments that distract from the meaning of what somebody is trying to say.
You are the "Jason Bradfield" of the atheists.

The reason you don't like my assertion that dogma is the only problem is because you clearly have atheist dogma.
You have the very "belief" that you fear in others.

Show me the difference between what I am saying and what WM lays out.
And if you have any questions as to which meaning of a word like "belief" I am using, ask. Don't assume
When you do, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

Anonymous wrote: "In that vein, I wonder if you might be willing to share with us the extent of your own formal education in philosophy and theology."

Some philosopy in college, but no theology there. However, I am an inveterate student/learner. So, in the course of my adult life, I would have to chalk up 40 years of informal study of science, theology, philosophy and metaphysics. Over most of that period, I have read, on average, 2 books per week... probably around one tenth of them relating directly to the above subjects.

In the course of those studies, I coined my own definition of 'metaphysics': "The blind leading the stupid into the unknown on a quest for the unfathomable."

Whenever I say that, I am inevitably asked: “Well, which are you then... blind or stupid?”

The thing they don’t understand, though, is that I take metaphysics very seriously. My definition is intended as a reminder to myself to keep things in context and in perspective, and not to take myself too seriously. Thus, since I (presumptuously) regard myself as both a teacher (blind) AND a student (stupid) in this realm, honesty compels me to admit that I am both blind and stupid.

Some people wonder... if this guy is blind and stupid, then why am I bothering to pay any attention to him? What can I possibly gain from reading his crap?

Well... you see... in this regard, EVERYBODY is blind and stupid... the difference is, most of us don’t KNOW that we're blind and stupid. Once we KNOW that we're blind and stupid, then we can begin to learn how to deal with BEING blind and stupid... and the beginning of that is to stop convincing ourselves that we know things that we DON'T really know.

I think that's all from me for today. Timmy has tired me out.

Timmy,
You are not "schizo." I'm actually qualified to make that diagnosis, and you're not even close. You're also none of the other labels tossed around here.

Your ideas are subtle. Words are too coarse to to get them across to everyone. It's nobody's fault; everyone here is very smart. It's the limits of the medium of language. Some won't understand. Some won't understand but think they do. Some will understand but not agree. Some will agree entirely or only in part. The combinations are almost endless.

At the risk of sounding "absolute," I don't think anyone here has it all 100% sorted out yet within ourselves. Everybody's got to find their own point of balance with these issues, and it keeps shifting as we learn from new experiences. Because we don't have a formal dogma, we're all in process, in flux. So at any given moment only a few people will recognize/understand/agree with anyone else on subtle points. That's the consequence of having no dogma. Only dogma can cement all opinion into continuous agreement. Let's hope as atheists we never have one.

At least one dyed-in-the-wool, never-had-a-religion atheist who doesn't do the mental activity of belief in any way, recognizes what you are saying. At this moment, in my present stage of development, I get what you're saying, and I think it's valid and useful. Later you may change, I may change, and that connection might no longer hold. It's nice to know you here and now.

Considering what has been said here over the past few days, I think the following might be appropriate... even though I previously presented the same thing in another thread. I apologize to those who have already had this dose. It explains what I have learned about why it is so hard for rational people to communicate with religious people, and it builds upon my previous post.

There are some subtleties at work, concerning the nature of 'belief, which seem to escape the notice of most people.

A rational person might, in the course of ordinary conversation, say something like "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that he understands that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. It is an expression which conveys the sense that we have confidence that the idea is reasonable, based upon the current state of knowledge. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight, to be appropriately incorporated into one's world-view. However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode, for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down... and ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies, misrepresentations and pseudo-science that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) generally oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They just keep blithely bopping along, doing what science does... trying to figure out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded (willing to honestly consider alternative possibilities), intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a conviction that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs'... based upon the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of a bunch of ignorant Bronze Age fishermen and wandering goat-herders... represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are closed-minded, seeking only VALIDATION of their beliefs... and hence, of their self-description.

DuckPhup, it's refreshing to hear someone shout from the rooftops about the importance of education! I'm confident we all agree that education absolutely is the answer. Without the appropriate skills and knowledge, the uneducated person is just blowing smoke.

In that vein, I wonder if you might be willing to share with us the extent of your own formal education in philosophy and theology?

Timmy wrote: "Don't be telling people that, trying to find a higher meaning for, or giving a higher meaning to their altruistic spirit is a dangerous idea to you because you fear words like faith, worship and believe."

That has got to be one of the most preposterous statements that I have ever read. Nothing I have written here, and indeed, nothing I have READ here provides even the slightest HINT that ANY of that is anything other than utter nonsense. Rather, it sounds hysterical... and I don't mean in the ha-ha-sense. Similarly, the rest of your recent rants... they demonstrate a cognitive disconnect with what this is really all about. And they contain the largest single collection of 'straw man' arguments (a logical fallacy) that I have ever encountered... bar none.

(Part of what follows is a repeat from another thread. My apologies to those who have already had this dose.)

'Belief' is very much misunderstood. It is perfectly correct and acceptable, in ordinary conversation, to say things like:

"I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow."

"I believe that OJ did it."

"I believe that the earth, the universe and Heaven were created in six days, around six thousand years ago, as described in Genesis."

However, in the course of non-trivial discourse, there are important distinctions to be made with respect to nuances of meaning... nuances which seem to ESCAPE THE NOTICE of the majority of people... that majority being those with a 'religious' mind. They are OBLIVIOUS to the fact that the MEANING of the word 'believe' in each of those sentences is fundamentally and qualitatively DIFFERENT.

A real 'belief' is a certainty of the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence or reality. It is one of the primary 'filters' via which we interpret input from reality, and from which we create our 'self-description' and our world-view (subjective reality). Here are the key elements of that internalized filter set:

* Misconceptions
* Prejudices
* BELIEFS
* Knowledge base
* Experiential reference

With our five senses, we are able to perceive only a tiny fraction of a billionth of a trillionth of the input that the universe provides. Most of what we DO perceive is filtered out by the subconscious. The tiny bit that is left over gets processed through those 'filters' of our self-description... and the output of those filters is our 'world-view'... our 'subjective reality'. Of course, in addition to what we perceive directly, we also similarly process abstracted information... stuff that we read, hear from media, from teachers and preachers, from our family and friends, our associates and aquaintences.

So... going back to the sentence "I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow"... that is not really a 'belief', per se. First of all, it is a metaphor, not a statement of fact. Second, we all know that some day, the sun will NOT "come up tomorrow." In about 5 billion years, the earth will be reduced to a crispy critter and then be blown away as ashes, as the sun expands to a red giant. No... at most, this statement can be said to represent a 'reasonable expectation', supported via our 'knowledge base' and 'experiential reference'. It is not a real 'belief'. This is NOT the kind of thing that gets incorporated into the primary filters of our 'self-description'.

Similarly, "I believe that OJ did it" is really just a strongly-held opinion, based upon evaluation and interpretation of the 'evidence', as influenced by our misconceptions and prejudices. It in no way represents a definitive statement or certainty of 'truth' with regard to matters of existence and fundamental reality. This, also, is NOT the kind of thing that gets incorporated into the primary BELIEF filters of our 'self-description'. However, it MIGHT contaminate one's 'knowledge base'.

The final statement, though... "I believe that the earth, the universe and Heaven were created in six days, around six thousand years ago, as described in Genesis"... represents a fundamental component of one's self-description. It is a primary filter, through which one interprets, evaluates and judges information which might potentially have an effect on one's perception of reality. For example, new information about the age of the universe, the age of the earth, evolution... all of that gets processed... and rejected, as false... here... in this filter. Beliefs are an internal representation of what we hold to be absolute certainty of 'truths' pertaining to fundamental aspects of existence and objective reality. Well, guess what? NOBODY knows ANY absolute 'truth' pertaining to objective reality. (The ONLY thing we an say with any certainty about objective reality is that it is 'non-local', as revealed by Bell's Theorem.) Essentially, then, a 'belief' is a delusion, which is sustained by 'faith'... wishful, or magical, thinking. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what IS.

Faith-based 'belief' is an insidious mind-killer... it cuts one off from the open-minded and intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt the veracity of one's own assumptions) consideration of alternative possibilities.

Imagine Mr. Mackey, the counselor, on South Park: "Bleeefs are baaaaddd... m'kay?"

The only way for a person to 'evolve' (change and grow) spiritually and personally, and achieve 'open-mindedness' (the ability to honestly consider alternative possibilities) and intellectual honesty (the wilingness to question and doubt one's own assumptions) is to ELIMINATE beliefs... and prejudices... and misconceptions... from that internal filter bank.

Open-mindedness and intellectual honesty, quite simply, are not a possibility in conjunction with religious belief system. It is only when 'beliefs' are DEMOTED to 'paradigms' (useful ways of thinking about things) that personal and spiritual growth can effectively begin, and open-mindedness can (some day) be achieved.

Oh... and we must learn to get comfortable with the concept of "I don't know." That does, after all, describe the 'true' state of affairs.

Anyway... 'faith'... as stated above, and in the context of religious belief, is nothing more than wishful, magical thinking. It is the insubstantial, nebulous clouds upon which 'belief' is sustained.

Faith (wishful, magical thinking) is a substitute for evidence... and serves as the basis for 'belief'... the internalized certainty that one's own ideations map to reality.

'Belief' is a substitute for knowledge... i.e., false knowledge, sustained by wishful, magical thinking.

Faith + belief ---> willful ignorance and self-delusion

It is interesting to note, referring to the inability of the religious mind to discern subtle differences in the meaning of 'belief', they similarly are unable to discern or appreciate subtle nuances of meaning pertaining to the concept of 'faith'. Fundamentalist preachers seem to be aware of this deficiency, and use it to their advantage. Typical evangelical harangues include things like "You have 'faith' that the chair you are sitting in is not going to collapse under you, don't you? You had faith that the plane that brought you here wasn't going to crash, didn't you? You have faith in your spouse, don't you? Well then, have faith in the Lord."

They are simply unable to discern the qualitative differences that are implied in those different uses of 'faith'. They enjoy no 'subtlety' of thought.

It is very disconcerting, when having a conversation with someone, to suddenly realize that they are not able to make the kinds of subtle distinctions that you make and take for granted. And, when you try to explain it to them, they STILL don't 'get it'. I'm beginning to think that you don't get it either, Timmy.

And finally, 'worship'... "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." That is quite different from 'worshipping the Red Sox', or your wife.

By sloppy use of language, you can do much more harm than good. And by sugar-coating valid, vital criticisms in the marshmellowy goodness of Smore(f), you render them vacuous and impotent.

Sure, dogma is bad... but think of dogma as a three-legged stool. Its legs are faith, belief and worship.

Education is the answer to this... not sugar-coated bon mots and fuzzy-wuzzy platitudes. Most of the religiose, whose brains are clouded and befuddled by religious beliefs, have never even HEARD of rationality and critical thinking, let alone know how to DO it. They have no idea that the things they believe are essentially stupid, or WHY that is so. They do not KNOW that their world view is rooted in the myths, fairy tales, superstitions and fantastical delusions of a bunch of ignorant Bronze Age fishermen and wandering goat herders. They are completely ignorant of the ACTUAL origins of their own particular beliefs... never mind the history of religion in general. If they had the appropriate knowledge, and knew how to THINK properly, they would NOT BE religious (that there are some exceptions to this is duly acknowledged).

Timmy... I am sorry to say, but to say this, but I would have to characterize your posts over the past 2 days, cumulatively, as a 'hysterical rant', which does NOTHING to advance the cause of rationality, or even spirituality. You just need to take a couple of deep breaths and calm down, Bubba.

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." ~ Robert A. Heinlein

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things... that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg

"I am that I am." ~ God
"I am what I am." ~ Popeye

I’m starting to see how some atheists can sound dogmatic … it’s that darn certainty! It reminds me of people like Jason Bradfield (though I’d much rather go out drinking with you guys!)

Gad, how can you KNOW the “meaning” of life (or the lack thereof)? Are you omniscient? How can you be so sure that what we currently perceive is all there is? Science hasn’t told us whether or not there is an aspect to existence that we have not yet been able to objectively observe and quantify.

I happen to think that the best way to investigate reality is using the scientific method and I agree with Pam about the joys of learning about the natural world (I’m looking forward to reading “Our Inner Ape” as she recommended). And I am very doubtful that naval gazing is going to inform me of any externally-imposed meaning of life. I think that my life means what I decide it means: right here, right now. That said, I continue to naval gaze, since it brings me a sense of peace and calms the more turbulent waters of my mind.

But who am I to say that no other person has had an experience of some other aspect of existence than that with which I am familiar? Who am I to say that there are no insights to be gained by experimenting with consciousness? Maybe there is a nature to reality that we can’t currently perceive with our senses of touch, sight, hearing, etc. Maybe we do have some other means of perception that we can only get in touch with by going within. Can anyone give overwhelming evidence against it? (Not a rhetorical question, I really would like to hear evidence against this or why this might be a loony idea).

I can certainly see why people would ask such questions, even if I am doubtful of anybody’s ability to answer them. Heck, if people can sit around the boob tube all day zoning out to some trite, prepackaged entertainment (myself included), how can an internal search for meaning seem to be such a waste of time and mental energy - a squandering of real estate in the garden of ideas? It seems to me that in most cases, the worst that would come of it would be some insight into one’s life due to mental processing that is solely based on modes of perception that are commonly agreed upon. Maybe the insights for some people would be that this is what matters – what we can see, hear, smell, feel, etc – right now, and that we should live our lives to the fullest without worrying about any other "meaning".

The insights for the delusional may be more dangerous and those may create the seeds of religion and dogma. But, as Timmy mentioned, what can any of us do about those people anyway (other than doing our best to make sure that children's needs are met and they have the opportunity to grow up to be mentally healthy)? Maybe they are likely to be delusional regardless of the climate of tolerance of “spirituality” in which they were formed. I would think that these people would be mostly marginalized and ignored if they lived in a society that valued individuals’ own searches for inspiration, enlightenment, and meaning, rather than in a society that valued “following the leader.”

Enough of my rambling … feel free to tell me how nuts I am!

Pam,

Do you really think that there is nothing more to discover about the universe that might give meaning to life, beyond what we currently know?
Not God.
But some purpose for it all that we have not even imagined yet?

Matter is energy and energy is matter and we're all made of stardust.
This we know.
And that's it?
Are you sure?

This is the kind of thinking that suggested the closing the patten office for good after the discovery of the radio.
Because there was nothing left to invent.
This was a suggestion that was actually put forth into congress.

Pam,

Higher meaning is the answer to the question, "Why?"

You have an answer for "how."
Do you have an answer for "why?"
If you do, please share.
You can choose to not care "Why?"

But the question exists. Do you know why it exists?

I think, therefore I am.

You can't shut off the part of your brain that asks, why?
You can ignore it.
But don't tell others that they can't wonder, and still be an atheist.
I don't believe in the God of the Bible or anything like that.
That makes me an atheist.

You are certain that life has no meaning beyond biology.
That make you another kind of atheist.
It's called a nihilist.

We're both atheists.
If it is nihilists you are trying to rally together, you won't need a very big hall for your meetings. And you won't be a very effective political voice.

Good luck.

Sorry for the duplicate post.

Pam,

Refer to my last post to Gad to clear up your misconception that I do not accept the biological and evolutionary explanation for all of the things that I lumped together, and gave the name, Shmorf.
It is just biology. I'm the one who said that in my first post about it. Plain as day I said it.
But Like Gad, you flag words and stop paying attention.

And,
If you've never had a "coincidence with meaning", then I feel bad for you. What terrible luck. Most of us have had many.
We don't believe it is literally a sign from God, or literally stars aligning.
But anyone who does not enjoy the completely imaginative thought that this was a sign of something, is cold man. Unimaginative, and cold. Wouldn't want to have a beer with that guy, or girl. No fun at all.
People who have such imaginative thoughts are dangerous to you?
Get over yourself.

Never mind Pam. Forget about my ideas. They are stupid and dangerous.

Go back to your plan of making people stop believing in something higher with your oh so intelligent argument against the scientific probability of such things.
it's really helping. I can see the results.
Not.
it's a circular argument that accomplishes nothing but alienation. But you are welcome to it.

But I would just ask you to read my posts more carefully if you are going to comment on them.
I don't believe in any God or higher power.
I imagine things that make me feel good.
There is no danger there.
And I am much more attractive to the faithful, as someone who can lead them away from the dogmatic belief that the church has attached to their Shmorf, than you and your argument of "life is just biology".

Evolution not Revolution Pam,

Higher meaning is the answer to the question, "Why?"

You have an answer for "how."
Do you have an answer for "why?"
If you do, please share.
You can choose to not care "Why?"

But the question exists. Do you know why it exists?

I think, therefore I am.

You can't shut off the part of your brain that asks, why?
You can ignore it.
But don't tell others that they can't wonder, and still be an atheist.
I don't believe in the God of the Bible or anything like that.
That makes me an atheist.

You are certain that life has no meaning beyond biology.
That make you another kind of atheist.
It's called a nihilist.

We're both atheists.
If it is nihilists you are trying to rally together, you won't need a very big hall for your meetings. And you won't be a very effective political voice.

Good luck.

Pam,

Refer to my last post to Gad to clear up your misconception that I do not accept the biological and evolutionary explanation for all of the things that I lumped together, and gave the name, Shmorf.
It is just biology. I'm the one who said that in my first post about it. Plain as day I said it.
But Like Gad, you flag words and stop paying attention.

And,
If you've never had a "coincidence with meaning", then I feel bad for you. What terrible luck. Most of us have had many.
We don't believe it is literally a sign from God, or literally stars aligning.
But anyone who does not enjoy the completely imaginative thought that this was a sign of something, is cold man. Unimaginative, and cold. Wouldn't want to have a beer with that guy, or girl. No fun at all.
People who have such imaginative thoughts are dangerous to you?
Get over yourself.

Never mind Pam. Forget about my ideas. They are stupid and dangerous.

Go back to your plan of making people stop believing in something higher with your oh so intelligent argument against the scientific probability of such things.
it's really helping. I can see the results.
Not.
it's a circular argument that accomplishes nothing but alienation. But you are welcome to it.

But I would just ask you to read my posts more carefully if you are going to comment on them.
I don't believe in any God or higher power.
I imagine things that make me feel good.
There is no danger there.
And I am much more attractive to the faithful, as someone who can lead them away from the dogmatic belief that the church has attached to their Shmorf, than you and your argument of "life is just biology".

Evolution not Revolution Pam,

Higher meaning is the answer to the question, "Why?"

You have an answer for "how."
Do you have an answer for "why?"
If you do, please share.
You can choose to not care "Why?"

But the question exists. Do you know why it exists?

I think, therefore I am.

You can't shut off the part of your brain that asks, why?
You can ignore it.
But don't tell others that they can't wonder, and still be an atheist.
I don't believe in the God of the Bible or anything like that.
That makes me an atheist.

You are certain that life has no meaning beyond biology.
That make you another kind of atheist.
It's called a nihilist.

We're both atheists.
If it is nihilists you are trying to rally together, you won't need a very big hall for your meetings. And you won't be a very effective political voice.

Good luck.

Pam,

Refer to my last post to Gad to clear up your misconception that I do not accept the biological and evolutionary explanation for all of the things that I lumped together, and gave the name, Shmorf.
It is just biology. I'm the one who said that in my first post about it. Plain as day I said it.
But Like Gad, you flag words and stop paying attention.

And,
If you've never had a "coincidence with meaning", then I feel bad for you. What terrible luck. Most of us have had many.
We don't believe it is literally a sign from God, or literally stars aligning.
But anyone who does not enjoy the completely imaginative thought that this was a sign of something, is cold man. Unimaginative, and cold. Wouldn't want to have a beer with that guy, or girl. No fun at all.
People who have such imaginative thoughts are dangerous to you?
Get over yourself.

Never mind Pam. Forget about my ideas. They are stupid and dangerous.

Go back to your plan of making people stop believing in something higher with your oh so intelligent argument against the scientific probability of such things.
it's really helping. I can see the results.
Not.
it's a circular argument that accomplishes nothing but alienation. But you are welcome to it.

But I would just ask you to read my posts more carefully if you are going to comment on them.
I don't believe in any God or higher power.
I imagine things that make me feel good.
There is no danger there.
And I am much more attractive to the faithful, as someone who can lead them away from the dogmatic belief that the church has attached to their Shmorf, than you and your argument of "life is just biology".

Evolution not Revolution

Timmy, you're starting to sound seriously schizo. I tell you this not to be insulting, but to let you know how you're sounding to others.

You talk about being a confirmed atheist in one sentence, then in the next you're defending the idea of higher meaning, saying that we can't prove it doesn't exist.

Where would "higher meaning" come from, if not from a diety? You can't have it both ways.

I think you're seriously conflicted, and not really sure of where you stand. You should work on that.

Gad,

Your fear blinds you.
You hear words that I say like "faith" and it causes you to miss the rest of the words that I say.
e.g.
"I can't image how you could think you were the "hardest of hardcore atheists" while believing in "higher meaning"?"

I didn't say that I believed in higher meaning.
Where did you hear me say that?
I said that I accept the biological and evolutionary explanation for human emotion and altruism.
But it leaves me cold.
Not seeking God.
Just cold.
I said that I love that altruistic voice. (I love my evolutionary biology)
Wow. Dangerous idea.
I said that I will CHOOSE to worship it. (like buddy worships the Dallas Cowboys) it means I am dedicated to living up to it.
Wow, lock this guy up, he's scary.
I said that I will have faith in it. (I will have faith in my evolutionary altruism)

Now, because you flag words, you miss what I actually said and you think I believe in God.
i personified this thing that I love and give it a name because it is many things that I lump together.
I clearly believe in the science explanation. But I don't have affection for the science aspect of my Shmorf.
I have affection for the emotional joy I get from it.

Does this make me less of an atheist than you?
I absolutely believe that there is no such thing as God as described in the Bible. I spout this all day every day.

But what is your evidence that there is no higher meaning to life that we have not yet discovered.
What do you know that science doesn't know yet.
Do you know that there was nothing before the big bang?
Science doesn't know that. And what is nothing?
Do you know what energy is?
Science doesn't. It only knows it's properties.
Why do things exist?
Solved puzzles to you?
Really?

The Bible is wrong = life is meaningless. It is proven

Really?

You have no sense of wonder my friend. A weak imagination. And you are welcome to it, but please don't be so arrogant and ignorant as to call my imagination "dangerous".

I say that a personal belief in a higher form or higher meaning is harmless without dogma or preaching. (same thing)

You say that such beliefs are dangerous. And then go on to say because they CAN lead to dogma.
Thoughts of nihilism can also lead to dogma.
Thoughts of any philosophy can lead to dogma.
Thoughts of jealousy can lead to murder.
Thoughts of love can lead to murder.
Love is dangerous?
You are way way off base.

Dogma is the dangerous idea.
Personal faith is harmless unless accompanied by dogma.

If you disagree. Please show how personal belief in a higher meaning is dangerous. And do so without speaking of dogma.

And again; crazy people don't factor into this.
They will always hear voices even in a faithless world.

WM.

Completely agree.
Tough love, with respect.

Evolution not revolution

Timmy wrote:
"But what about that rush of emotion and shivers,
and the lump in the throat,
and crying for strangers,
and triumphant joy,
and empathy,
and the signs from God."

Some of that is redundant - what you're describing (except for the last item) is emotion and empathy, all of which is a perfectly natural part of being a social animal that uses its brain as a large part of its survival strategy. Chimpanzees show both traits. I cannot recommend Frans de Waal's book "Our Inner Ape" too highly.
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/OurInnerApe/book.html

Timmy wrote: "Now on that last one. Don't tell me you haven't had signs from God. Everyone, even atheists experience the phenomenon where something happens that feels like a sign, or a message, or an angel looking out for you."

Nope. Can't say that I've ever had an experience like that. I suspect you only see that sort of thing if you're actively looking for it. I have a very religious friend who runs marathons. For one of her races last year, rain was predicted. Before the race her sister prayed to God to hold off on the rain until all the runners were done. My friend was the last to cross the finish line (she's 68 years old), and just as she did, it began to rain. Is this the sort of thing you're talking about? Now, when it's raining and I have to walk to my car, I ask my friend to have God stop the rain for a minute, please. So far she hasn't delivered.

Timmy wrote: "Did you see my example of the guy who 'worships' the Dallas Cowboys, and 'believes' in the offensive line, and has 'faith' that they will win the Super Bowl?
Do you think this guy is creepy and thinks that his favorite football team is God?
Or is he just using words that scare you?"

I think "worships" would be a bit strong for even the biggest football fanatic. "Believes" and "faith" in this context certainly haven't got the same meaning as when a religious person talks about them.

Timmy Wrote: "I'm just trying to build a bridge that they can walk across if they like.
A welcome matt that isn't as cold as 'life has no meaning retard, wake up!'"

I sympathize with the sentiment, but it's a bit too much like replacing everything one-for-one with something else. It doesn't solve the problem.
I would never suggest using the latter part of your last sentence to convince someone to give up believing in fantasy. I don't actually believe that life has no meaning. It certainly has meaning for me. That's quite different from saying that there isn't a *purpose* for life. Life is because it can be, simple as that.

I prefer to try to show people the power and the beauty of the natural world and the ways in which it works. This is endlessly fascinating to me. I must have read literally *hundreds* of books on biology, evolution, evo-devo, geology, genetics, animal behavior, anthropolgy, astronomy, and paleontology. If I could just turn people on to the wonders of such learning, I think they couldn't help but give up their antiquated superstitions. Tough slogging with those who believe that such books are inspired by the devil, though. ;^)

The purpose of life is life, and there is no "higher meaning" in an existential universe. People who can not deal with that start talking about a "higher meaning", and that is the SEED of every religion and cult that there ever was or will be.

The garden of ideas is a jungle, and every seed planted has to compete for finite mental resources to survive, The "higher meaning" seeds are weeds in my view that have survived for far to long, chocking reason out. I do not want to control them, I want to weed the garden so reason can flourish. This may sound harsh, but it the nature of competition for resources and survival in a cold unsympathetic universe. Being nice will not prevent those crossing the gap over your bridge from bring and planting their weed seeds of "higher meaning".

Finally I can't image how you could think you were the "hardest of hardcore atheists" while believing in "higher meaning"?

I have many atheists friends, and while there is some variation in our thinking, for the most part we are in sync, and I kind of thought [wrongly] that that was more or less the norm. I've gleaned from this forum that there are people who call them selfs atheists in a vastly different manner then I call my self an atheists........... That troubles me on first thought, I need to think about for a while.

Timmy - I couldn't agree more about the need for respect towards people - that need has become more and more apparent to me over the last week. I think that insults get us nowhere except backwards - and they demean the insulter. If I am being insulting, I hope that you/anyone else will call me on it and help me to see how - insulting anyone is not my intention.

But for people who are seekers - people who may be reevaluating the value of faith (belief without "sufficient" evidence) - I think that it is helpful to provide reasons that faith is inadequate - perhaps even harmful. When I'm trying to evaluate something, I want to hear the pros and cons, the arguments both for and against. I would think that other seekers would want the same. Is this not the case?

And as for these atheists that I accuse of wanting to control people's minds?
I am talking about the kind of reaction they have to honest spiritual inquiry.
Don't be telling people that, trying to find a higher meaning for, or giving a higher meaning to their altruistic spirit is a dangerous idea to you because you fear words like faith, worship and believe.

These thoughst are not creepy.
Your fear of such thoughts is what's creeeeepy.

Your need for everyone to accept that those spiritually uplifting feelings are just your biology functioning and nothing more, is telling.
If that is how you feel, you are not a "non believer"
You are a believer. And atheist believer.

Science has not found any higher meaning.
No one can prove that higher meaning exists.
And no one can prove that it doesn't

Many of the comments I have received make it sound like the people making the comments believe that science has proven no higher meaning.

If so. You are every bit as much a believer as the God fearing.

WM,

I agree. But how will they hear our valid argument if we keep calling them names like delusional, childish, gullible, idiot, zombie etc.

I wouldn't listen to a word someone said whilst calling me such names.

We will only get our point across with respect. And most importantly, understanding.

I invented Shmorf to illustrate the goodness inside people that they have attached to their faith.
When you attack their faith, they think you are attacking goodness.
They think you are attacking those rushes of emotion they get when they hear words of love.

Tough love is correct. I'm with you.
But tough love with respect.

And I will end all of my posts with this most important phrase.

EVOLUTION not REVOLUTION

Anonymous,

I sure do care. I care deeply.
This is why I have given up on the faith bashing. It's is counterproductive and mean, with no results.
Actually it produces negative results. It alienates further and increases the problem.

I don't believe in God, so faith in God makes no sense to me, but I have come to realize that I understand people of faith.
Most of them are the kindest hearted people I have ever encountered and would never want to harm a fly.
And if that means working with non believers on the ideal that no ones dogma should be imposed on others, I believe they will do it.
That is why we should give them good reason to see us as a friend, not an enemy.

Dogma: (From Webster's) A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

What an ugly ugly word. What an ugly ugly principle.
It goes against the very core of democracy and freedom, the rights that we hold so dear.
Dogma: One authority lays down the law and no one is to question it.
This is even more frightening when the authority is an invisible man in the sky and he is supposedly speaking through an Earthly divine leader who receives the authority from the deity.
Yeah right. Says him.
Talk about a recipe for draconian disaster.

People with free minds can not live with dogma.
Dogma is a repulsive, antiquated enemy of the free mind.
It is a brainwashing tool for the weak minded.
It was a plotting diabolical mind that invented dogma.

Faith is not the problem.
Dogma is the problem.
Dogma is all of the bad stuff in religion.
People don't need dogma to adhere to all of the goodness in the Bible. It comes naturally to them. It's what attracted them to the church in the first place.
They are duped into believing that all of this goodness in the world is God.
Dogma is all about controlling morals.
To gain power over morals.
Ugly ugly ugly ugly nasty power hungry evil, is dogma.
Mind manipulation, is religious dogma.

Hell is not where the devil lives.
Hell is what the devil preaches.
(Just a distilled statement, not dogma. I am no authority, just a free mind speaking)
I would never tell anyone that they must believe what I just said or be punished. And no one will go to Hell for questioning it.

Faith is fine.
Attack dogma only.

Just my opinion.
But it is shared by everyone I know.
So I am most certainly not alone.

Democracy and dogma can not coexist without brainwashing.
No one naturally submits to dogma. They have to be manipulated into it with fear.

Any more questions about what I am talking about when I use the word dogma? I will be happy to answer in even more detail.

Didn't mean to be dismissive. I just don''t know of any other definition of dogma.
Perhaps you could give me one so as to explain your confusion.

I agree with you, Timmy. I think that if believers shed their dogma and started having faith in their inner moral voices that the world would be a MUCH safer place. And I hope that you are right about the number of fence-sitters out there!

Re “I went from being the hardest atheist I know to someone who is kind of creeped out by you extroverted nihilists who want to control peoples minds.”

I don’t think that many of the atheists on this blog want to control people’s minds (if any of you do, please speak up!) I think that some of us just see greater danger in faith, belief without “good” evidence, than others and don’t think that it should be encouraged because of what it could lead to. The wolves are out there ready to prey on the unwary. Maybe belief/faith in the tooth fairy (or whatever) makes us more susceptible to the wolves.

Re: “We all know it's going nowhere but we keep falling back into it.” For me, the conversation hasn’t been going nowhere. I’ve learned a lot from it, probably most importantly, that I should approach spiritual/religious matters with less arrogance (a tough order for me!) and more acceptance that people’s individual experiences are – and should be – meaningful to them, just as mine are to me. For those who are interested, maybe the thoughts and experiences of the many people here will be of some value as they try to reframe their experiences in a less absolute, less dogmatic way. Maybe certainty – complete confidence that one’s experiences and reasoning reflect the absolute truth about God/Schmore/the universe/etc – is the biggest danger to everyone. Exposure to other peoples' experiences and points of view may make most reasonable people – myself included – less certain.

Dear Kate

Ref: Your post 10 Jan 07 9:42 AM

Thanks for your nice post clarifying your intentions. A post out of the blue without knowing the poster’s intention can create misunderstanding on a public forum. But now all is clear.

Many thanks for that great link on Einstein. I listened to the one hour audio part as well. Terrific stuff!

It is really good to hear that the Aussies were kind to you and they made your time here easier. Sydney is a dream city and I never get tired of being around the Opera House, watching the Opera House, and looking out at the water. I’m glad you had the opportunity to take the ferry every day and enjoy the best of Sydney on the way to work and back everyday. The mighty waters do stir one’s emotions and imagination in an extremely powerful way.

I’m aware that in answering your questions, I’d be going somewhat (maybe even completely) off topic on this thread, but here it goes anyway.

1. Why don’t I use ‘She’ or ‘It’ for God, considering I’m female?

(BTW I’m female. My middle name, John, is my father’s first name according to community tradition. I mentioned that on other threads actually, but I’ll repeat it on this one, just in case you didn’t read my post that mentioned it.)

A. I’m a Christian by conviction, and hence Jesus is my Lord and God. In other words I consider Jesus to be the human form of God. He happens to be male, hence I feel perfectly comfortable with “He”. God could have taken the form of a female for sure, but in this instance He came as male. He couldn’t possibly have represented both genders at the same time. Jesus addressed God as Father, probably for two reasons, 1. If one believes in His virgin birth, God was literally His Father. 2. Father is the symbol for provider and protector, much more than a mother. I say symbol. But God is for sure beyond gender. In my school days I learnt a Hindi song, and it went, ‘You are my mother, you are my father, you are my relative, you are my friend, you are my protector, you are my everything…’ That is why I never had an issue about God’s gender. (Advantage of learning things as a child!) For me it is self-explanatory that God is beyond gender. I was quite amazed when I first met people from the West at Dom Bede Griffiths’ Ashram, who had massive issues with God’s gender! Their whole belief in God seemed to hinge on determining with certainty if God was male or female. It is God’s love that flows through the heart of males, females and children. I can’t recall the number of the Psalm, but it expresses beautifully how God is the essence in everything. (Aside, I absolutely love the Psalms. In Shanthivanam, the Christian Ashram of Dom Bede Griffiths, according to the Benedictine tradition, we used to read the Psalms three times a day, and also Scripture from other religions, during prayer. It means we prayed the Scripture of other religions, not just accepted it as a revelation of God intellectually, and because it was part of Christian worship, we had no confusion about our religion.)

B. God is not an “It”. He is far too alive, Creator of life itself, to be compared to an object.

C. Why does considering God as a human being not reduce the mystery and power of a mighty God for me? The explanation Dom Bede Griffiths gave about God sounds logical to me, “God is fully imminent and fully transcendental.” God is in His Creation and is also the mighty Power you describe, far away beyond His creation as well –too complicated and mighty for the human mind to comprehend. He also came as a Person to relate to us. God could have taken the form of an elephant instead, but we would not have known who He was. He could not have communicated with us, only with the elephants. The Hindus believe in the Incarnation of God in various forms. As to the deities they worship, it merely represents one aspect/Avatar of God who manifests Himself in countless ways. This is why no religion poses a problem to the Hindus. God does not cease to be God simply because He chose to appear in a human form. But God being God, He didn’t have to resign His job as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe in order to appear in human form. I think of Jesus as a bit of God that was broken off to come to earth in human form.

D. As to the name ‘God’, it is only a name. One can say that God is beyond names. It is for our convenience that we choose to give Him a name. We need to express the reality with some word, don’t we? Whatever name anyone chooses to give Him in right but at the same time is only one way of expressing who God is. But when God came as a human being, He had a specific name, and that is Jesus. The name has power because it represents Him.

But as an ex-nun, you know all of the explanations I have given, and you should rightly be the one explaining these things to me, not the other way around!

I do wish that you have a wonderful time having discussions on this forum. I do not wish to engage in a long drawn ongoing discussion on a public forum though. This being a discussion from the perspective of an atheist, I didn’t feel I had anything much to discuss anyway, considering I have never been an atheist. I was actually hoping to make no more than one comment to Sam Harris’s piece. I wanted however to respond to posts addressed to me, and/or felt the urge to make a spontaneous comment about someone’s comment.

Wishing you peace, happiness and success always!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Timmy, with respect, you're awfully dismissive of people who seek in good faith to understand your views. I asked for your understanding of dogma because the way you use the word makes no sense. Your thoughts would be clearer if you explained. If you care.

Boy oh boy,

You know when I first got onto these threads I seriously thought that I was the hardest of hardcore atheists.
I fought those believers who attacked atheists as being, just as much believers in something unprovable, as the religious.

No I said. Not true.
We don't have a belief. You have a belief. We just don't believe it.
The onus of proof is on you.

But I can see that many of you do have a belief.
A very strong, almost creepy belief.
A troubling insistence that people not look for a higher meaning to life lest they creep you out.
"It's just your mind calculating those shivers you delusional freak. It's a biological reaction. Stop looking for something more your creeping me out. What word did you just use? Faith? Oh my god you're one of them"

You seem to think that I actually think that Shmorf is something other that our biology. Something God like.
I don't, and I said that.
But cold as the reality of it may be, I still have affection for that thing. I cherish it. (there, is that better than worship?) Feel better now?
I love that thing. And we don't know why the universe is here and energy is matter and matter is energy, we're all stardust, can't we dream you cold bastards?

I'm starting to see that there really are atheists who want to control what other people think.
They don't just want dogma out of their lives, they want everyone to believe that there is no higher meaning.

Well congratulations. While I was trying to tell you that you won't find any solutions so long as you are alienating them, you've alienated me.

I went from being the hardest atheist I know to someone who is kind of creeped out by you extroverted nihilists who want to control peoples minds.

Go back to talking them out of their faith with your crafty arguments. It's working marvelously.

EVOLUTION not REVOLUTION

Gad,

It's not for atheists.

News flash: There are already people who think that thing I describe is a separate agent.
Moreover they think that it is specifically, God of the bible, with all of the horrors that go with that.
I notice that you haven't had much luck talking these people out of that.
Again. I'm just trying to build a bridge that they can walk across. Unless you don't want them to come across if they're just going to buy into that horse crap that I just laid out.

Personally I have no problem with any spiritual thought people want to have so long as they move away from the dogmatic zombieness of the church.

This is a friendlier welcome mat than, "Life has no meaning retard, wake up!"

EVOLUTION not REVOLUTION

Timmy:

Well, the list of what Shmore isn't is getting longer, but what it is I'm still not clear on.

If you mean the decision making process that goes on inside our heads, I call that my mind.

When people starting seeing it as a separate agent is where the trouble starts.

Pam,

I would have just called it conscience if that's all that it was.
The reason I gave it a name was because it was many things that I chose to lump together because they represent most of the elements of God that appeal to people, but not the angry parts.

Conscience is just one.

But what about that rush of emotion and shivers,
and the lump in the throat,
and crying for strangers,
and triumphant joy,
and empathy,
and the signs from God.

Now on that last one. Don't tell me you haven't had signs from God. Everyone, even atheists experience the phenomenon where something happens that feels like a sign, or a message, or an angel looking out for you.
I better put this in caps
I DON'T BELIEVE THESE ARE REALLY SIGNS FROM GOD.
THEY ARE JUST COINCIDENCES WITH RELEVANT MEANING.

But we all know that experience.
So throw that in with Shmorf as well.

And about the words, "faith" and "worship"?
Just words. Switch em if you like.
Cherish, respect, dedicated,
I was just trying to draw a correlation.

Did you see my example of the guy who "worships" the Dallas Cowboys, and "believes" in the offensive line, and has" faith" that they will win the Super Bowl?
Do you think this guy is creepy and thinks that his favorite football team is God?
Or is he just using words that scare you?

I'm just trying to build a bridge that they can walk across if they like.
A welcome matt that isn't as cold as "life has no meaning retard, wake up!"

WM,

Good points.
I agree, it won't be enough of a replacement for many.
There's no Heaven. Huge draw back.
The eternal energy thing was a stretch replacement for that but I'm sure it wont cut it.

But it's not about replacing God with Shmore(f) (I already hate using that word)
I think there are more fence sitters out there than you might think though.
The capitalist/rapture churches prey on the kind of people who can be woken up to the fact that they are being taken advantage of. Because the evangelists are so bloody blatant about it.

I don't know. It is a weak replacement for people who need Heaven.
But I think there are a lot of people out there who have faith in the "idea of an all knowing loving God" more than the Bible angry vengeful, fire and brimstone one true God.
If we can get them half way there, think of the affect on the next generation.

Anyway, I'm Just trying some thoughts that aren't more of the same old argument of:

Our side says this.
Well our side says that is whack, and here's why.
Well our side has a clever argument for that.
Oh yeah well our side thought of that and so we came up with this.
Yeah well here's an argument that blows that argument out of the water.
No it doesn't because the laws of nature don't apply to God.
Yeah well, you say that I can't understand how God thinks, but you seem to make statements about what he thinks every two minutes.
And on and on and on.

We all know it's going nowhere but we keep falling back into it.
Three,weeks now. If it didn't already exist, we would need to invent the expression, ad nauseam.
We're all guilty, I'm not pointing fingers.

We can't get people away from faith in God, but we could at least try to get them away from dogma...?

E. Favorite,
I will consider carefully what you have said.

Timmy,
I think it is second nature for you to love people. I think I recognize exactly what you're saying, but words, as powerful as they can be, are still easily misunderstood. Your actions would express your idea better than words. In this blog media we're stuck with just words so we get kind of obsessive with them. If we could watch you all day we would probably witness exactly what you mean, and we wouldn't use any words other than to just describe your actions. So we wouldn't say, "Oh, by Schmore you mean (culturally laden noun)." We would say, " We watched Timmy go to the market. As he approached the door he tossed a bottle into the trash can. He took two steps, turned around and fished the bottle out of the trash, then tossed it into the recycle bin. Then he held the door for some guy with two big shopping bags in his hands." That might be a lot more words, but the story is more to the point than an abstract term.
I hope I'm on the right track.

Timmy,
I understand what you're saying. But Schmore (formerly Schmorf) has a name already - it's "conscience."

I do think it's built in to most of us (some lack it) and that it's part of our evolutionary heritage as social animals.

Gotta admit that the "faith" and "worship" parts of your post were off-putting to me, to. I don't worship anything - never will.

Timmy: I must say, I like “Schmore” a lot better than “Schmorf” – brings to mind campfires and marshmallowy treats … mmmm …. where do I sign up with Schmore?

The clarification of Schmore helped – I agree with many of your points. I think that most people have consciences, which have a genetic component and which also form according to the cultures that they live in – that inner moral guide. I think that you are referring to that conscience in a more creative way, but basically talking about the same thing, stirred together with humans’ feelings of empathy and our awe and wonder at beauty.

It must be easy for religious leaders to associate ones Schmore with a deity … because it has such a transcendent quality. Throw in a few spiritual experiences of oneness with the universe and the case must be really convincing – there must be SOMEONE out there causing these amazing feelings. And the helpful Pastor is doing such a good job explaining it, and he’s so sincere and so kind, and I really like how the story ends, and I want to believe, and it could be true …

You wrote “We will never, nor should we ever, make people lose their faith in God. We may however, get them to start seeing him as Shmorf.” In theory, I think that replacing God with Schmore would be great! Believers without dogma who realize the human elements of their morality, love of beauty, and spirituality would be a huge improvement over believers with dogma. But I’m not quite sure how we will get there with true believers without hurting the believers. (I’m not talking about seekers here, who are looking for a way to frame their lives and understand their experiences, but people who NEED God and are truly convinced that they have found him/her/it).

I’ve been thinking about this a lot the last few days, particularly with reference to my mother. We had our first conversation on God, Christianity, and belief EVER a few months ago when she came out to visit. It turns out that she was an atheist/agnostic when she was a young woman and she had a very personal spiritual experience that caused her to believe in God (she won’t share it with me, the family skeptic!) At the time, I calmly and rationally laid out some of the reasons that I am not a believer, certain that I was doing her a favor by helping her see the flaws in her religious beliefs. I thought that surely there are better ways to live ones life than based on a delusion. She didn’t seem to really be listening, and recommended that I read the bible and pray for Jesus to show himself to me. So I didn’t carry my arguments very far.

The more I have considered this, the gladder I am that I didn’t pursue the matter as far as I might have. For one, my mom’s pretty stubborn (I had to have gotten it from somewhere!) and it probably would have gone in one ear and out the other. But more importantly, what if I did manage to shake her faith? I think that she is so dependent on it, that it may have partially destroyed her. She has had a tough life in some ways – her baby brother died in a car accident when he was a teenager, she has lived through what was in a lot of ways a very difficult marriage, she gave up all of her artistic practice and aspirations to stay home with her 4 kids, and she has suffered from depression. She has leaned on God and her church for a long time – I think that she is very dependent on them. I don’t think that Schmore would cut it for her. So how could I try to take her beliefs away without first providing a firmer foundation for her to stand on? Now that I think about it, I could never do that to someone I love. And if I can’t do that to someone I love, then I shouldn’t do it to a stranger.

So that’s my current quandary. I do think that the beliefs that non-dogmatic believers hold can be harmful (per my earlier post). And I think that it would be better for the rest of us if they were not believers, as long as they could find an equally supportive way of viewing life, the universe, and everything – one that meets their needs. But maybe there are some believers who really do need God, especially if they have leaned on him/her/it for a long time. Maybe there are believers who wouldn’t need to believe in God if they could be helped to gently scoot over from the ladder of God to the scaffolding of Schmore. But how does one do that and make sure that they don’t fall into the gap between the two support structures?

Maybe the best I can do is to share my experiences and perspectives with the seekers and the fence sitters (if asked, as I’m assuming we have been in this forum - my Mom would not come anywhere near a discussion like this!) and leave those believers who need their beliefs and who are vulnerable to having those beliefs shaken in peace. And leave the non-believers and less-harmful believers to handle the fallout of some believers’ harmful beliefs – a task I sure hope we’re up to. Because I’m not at all sure that there are enough fence sitters and seekers out there to sufficiently help counteract any lunacies perpetrated by true believers. I would love to hear other ideas on this.

Gad,

You don't have a voice inside you that points out the altruistic thing to do for every situation. Every decision.

It's not an intrinsically good force.
It's not a force.
It's a voice that gives options.
It's the old angel on one shoulder and devil on the other.

You don't have that?
Really?
I am perplexed.
I have never come across some one who said that they didn't

Until I mentioned the word Shmore.

Then people get all freaked out.
Nothing to be scared of here.

I'm not looking for recruits.

You still don't get it.

You still hear things that I am not saying.

I'm not proselytizing.

I'm not recommending my example to anyone.

I'm not saying I've found the way.

This is not a philosophy for anyone.

No I am not saying that people would be able to over-ride a mind changing device with Shmore.

We all override our own altruistic voice every day. Because we have a choice.

And Magic?
Who said anything about magic?
Are you projecting?
You think the shivers are magic???????
Who said magic.
You said magic.

I'm pointing out that thing. That altruism that al people feel wether they act on it or not.
I'm saying that this thing in people, has been hijacked by religion.

When someone is telling a preacher that they can not feel God.
When they are being skeptical.
The preacher describes (that word I made up)
And tells them, that's God.
Of the Bible.

And it's not.
We all have that thing.
That is why we feel insulted when we hear Christians speak of their personal spiritual experience with Jesus.

And Anonymous,
Look up Dogma in the dictionary.
That's what I mean.
What's with these people who don't have dictionaries.
You think I have my own idea of Dogma?
It's in the dictionary.

Timmy -- my comment about being lady-like, etc, getting you nowhere, was not meant about "you." I was referring to people's reactions during past conscience-raising movements.

Regarding Schmore, hmmm -- try a little proselytizing (on a street corner) and let us know how it goes

TIMMY:
This is how it comes across to me.

Your idea of Shmore seems to me like a description of an innate magical force within humans that is intrinsically good. I do not believe in such a force, or see any need for one to describe why I recycle, cry during movies or love so deeply my wife and children.

From your idea, if there were [machine] that could change the mind, and you used it on a person with great Shmore, and told that person to do things that they were against naturally, they wouldn't because the innate and intrinsically good Shmore would still be there to guide them. Now replace the word [machine] with drug, trauma, religion, cult, mental breakdown etc. etc.

I don't think so.

your idea also implies that every person who kills or dies for their believes [faith], does so not because they believe it is right, but because they went against their innate and intrinsically good Shmore.

Again, I don't think so.

I surly live, love and feel as deeply as anyone, I just don't need magic to do it.

Richard Wade –

“Only the more immature people who already agree with my opinion will be entertained by it.”

That an example of being absolute – you’re mind reading – you can’t know who exactly will agree with you and how they will react.

“I strengthen only my ego-based ape behavior, and reduce the likelihood of ever having the liberating experiences described by Sam Harris and others….”

Where’d you get that idea? ANYONE as far as I can tell, can have these kinds of experiences. I have, and my ego is HUGE.

They felt really good – but, in my case, not life changing, any more than an incredible concert or sexual release would be life changing.

My suggestion? Stop trying. I don’t think it can be forced, except with drugs, maybe.

Tim,

You say, "I am telling people who believe that Shmore is God of the Bible that it isn't." Uh, okay, but how do you know that? Who told you?

What do you mean by "dogma" and why do you object to it?

Thanks for confirming my Christian faith

Silly people.
Still can't get God out of your head.
Still hung up on words like faith, worship, and Believe?
Really?
You don't believe anything?
You don't have faith in anything?
You don't worship, let's say, your time alone, or your cottage get away?

I was not talking Bible speak.
I was talking every day use of those words.

Will you jump all over someone if they say, "I worship the Dallas Cowboys man". "I believe in them this year." I have faith that they will win the super-bowl.

Is this person creepy? Delusional? Dangerous?
Or is this person just using words that they know, that best express their love of something. Their dedication to it.

Would you bloody hardcore atheists get over yourselves?
Relax.

Shmore is a word I made up for illustration purposes only.
It describes that thing that I talked about that we all have.
I have never met anyone who didn't have the same one.
It doesn't do specifics so it can never be codified.
It simply tells us the altruistic course of action for every decision we need to make in our lives.
"I threw that bottle in the garbage because it was most convenient but my Shmore tells me I should have seeked out a recycle bin.
Hitler was insane.
His Shmore was overridden by a diseased mind.
So no.
Crazy people listening to their Shmore isn't an issue.
The voices they hear they will hear. Shmore or no Shmore
We will always have the insane to deal with.
It has nothing to do with this

I am not trying to spread Shmore, or the idea of Shmore.
I don't want to start anything.

I am pointing out the thing in people that religion has hijacked.
They have told people that all of the goodness that they feel inside them is the God in this book.
That is why people who come to not like the church anymore keep their faith in Jesus. They can't let go of Shmore.
Nor should they.
I am telling people who believe that Shmore is God of the Bible that it isn't. It's just Shmore. We all have it
.
I'm showing all of you atheists who have been complaining that you "just can't understand faith because it's so retarded."
I'm showing you what it is.
It's just hijacked Shmore.
It's just a word I made up for illustration.

Gad I doubt your little voice tells you anything different than mine. You are just hyper freaked out by cult.
I get that.
I'm not suggesting one, or any course of action.

I just made up a word for illustration sake.

Calm down you spiritulaphobes!

Dogma and only Dogma is your enemy.

Robin,

I like the way you put that truth. I have that truth for myself as "I am, therefore, Be and Give".

You mention that you had family to turn to. My past fate didn't turn out that way. There were good memories and laughter, but I was judged for even asking "What god ?" questions out loud, which became a factor in a married-for-17-year divorce. It was as if I was the only one I knew paying attention to the deepest, simplest, and largest questions, willing to look and ask with courage. The hollowing isolation lead me to near suicide.

Then one day on one of my cognitive anger-up-the-hills bike rides, I realized that I only have this one existence, and no one or no 'reason' was ever worth self-destruction or verbal retaliation - I got lucky. Waves of fear, anger/hate, sadness, euphoria, and absurdities; it cracked some of my deepest emotional needs, balanced and set me free. I was also fortunate to have taken courses and participated in a very uncommon transformational 'technology' years ago that provided power tools in beingness that helped save my life. Deep emotional material for a hard-case analytical/engineer such as myself. One of the most worthwhile 'walking-paradox' challenges I know is to fully arrive at on-our-own free while remaining lovingly connected to and caring about humanity and each possible friend we meet.

The grieving process is complete for me, and that process made a set of natural emotional thoughts and memories that I accept to be whatever arises for the remainder of my life. My sadness is more than just for myself, though. I'm sad that not more of our world deeply seeks, comprehends, and appreciates the full value and limited time of their own lives, or apply an understanding of that to deeply value all of the lives on this 'marble out here in the cosmos'. I am so thankful for all of the good people that are sane, that do love one another, that spend their time helping, and actually embody their wonderful possibilities.

Thanks again for being a genuine 'fellow struggler' :-)

Ron

Interesting post on Schmorf (can’t say I love the name, though, makes me think of a little Klingon in the back of my head). I think I need to ponder it for a while (in breaks from work while I’m waiting for my computer to do its thing).

A few questions, though …

Does Schmorf appear differently to people in different cultures? What would Schmorf have told Isaac when he was commanded by the Christian God to sacrifice his son to him?

Are there people to whom Schmorf just does not appear? Did Schmorf speak to Hitler? If so, what did he say? What about child-abusers – does Schmorf speak to them? Are there evil Schmorfs or do these people just not hear Schmorf at all?

Maybe there are some people who should not put their trust in Schmorf … though Timmy’s Schmorf sure sounds like a good one.

Timmy:

That reads like an introduction to any endless number of cults that are trying to carve out a piece of the God market by dropping God and pushing their generic version of the "Force" or Force giver. No two people will have the same "little voice" and as soon as they start sharing there little voice with each other they will automatically and immediately start self-organizing in to like groups, then the groups will begin to fight over what the best set of little voice quality's are, and the arms race to control the Force has began........ Changing the name doesn't change anything, same idea, different packaging.

So I would not be with you, which underscores that point that my little voice tells me different things then yours...........

Timmy and Duckphup,
Thank you for your encouragement and guidance. (more, more)
I'm going to take a break now, to go visit the new Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles. Another kind of confronting the infinite. I'll look in again later. Play fair while I'm gone.
Peace be you.

Timmy asked: "Anyone with me?"

Sure... except for your invocation of 'faith', 'believe' and 'worship'.

Richard Wade wrote: "Any encouragement or guidance would be greatly appreciated."

Richard... try "How to Meditate," by Lawrence LeShan

I have managed to achieve satori, but not sustain it. The trick seems to be in not 'noticing' when you have achieved it. As soon as you 'notice' it... poof... gone. It's like "Wow... I'm doing it... wasn't I."

I'm still working on it.

Good luck.

Timmy,
I understood every word you just wrote. May you always be one with Shmorf.

Richard Wade,

I am with you. Spiritual thoughts are nothing but wonderful unless accompanied by Dogma.
What do you think of my "Shmorf" idea?

Oops,

I meant to say that Shmorf is harmless.

Shmorf is the opposite of harmless.

I’d like to re-focus briefly back to the original topic at the top of this column, waaaay up there, almost 400 comments ago, the idea of secular satori.

When I read Sam’s description of his experience, and later the several accounts people shared of their own experiences, I feel a powerful, tears-to-my-eyes envy. I tried for 16 years, meditating, gazing at a wall, attending endless intensives, following the instructions of credible teachers, and finally, still completely entrenched in my mind, gave up in despair. I told myself that it was all rubbish. Now all this has made me think that I was just saying “sour grapes,” and I want it! I want it! I want it! Waaaaah!

The extra frustrating thing is from the above stories it seems as random and rare as a small meteorite hitting someone on the back of the head. Hey, I put in my dues, dammit! Where’s my frikkin’ life-changing mystical experience!?

I think this is a natural thing available to anyone with a healthy brain. So I’m reading “The Power of Now” by Eckhart Tolle, a dogma-free culture-neutral instruction on this, and I’ll be putting it into practice. We’ll see, I guess.

And if any of my fellow atheists think I’m slipping into lunacy or betraying the atheist cause, I can only gently and respectfully say, “Go soak your head.”

Any encouragement or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

An atheists guide to understanding faith.

I have already shown time and time again how muddled this debate is due to the ambiguity of the word God.
Here's why, and how this relates to the Bruce Burleson issue we have been discussing.

I am and atheist.
I have faith in God.
What?
Let me put a bunch of words between those two statements and see if I can make it make sense.

I am an atheist.
I am fascinated by all that science has taught us.
We now know that the big bang was the start of our universe as we know it. We do not know what was before the big bang, if there was anything at all.
Why the big bang?
Why are we all here?
What is the purpose of life?
Is it, to just wonder about itself?
We all search for the answers to this mystery, with the knowledge that an answer is not likely to come in our lifetime.
There is no answer for "what is the meaning of life?"

We, each of us, must give our own life meaning if we want meaning.
So here is me, in my attempt to make life meaningful.

I would love to have a sense of purpose, even if I have to make one up. Kind of like giving yourself goals.
But do I have to make one up? Or has one presented itself to me already.
I feel a drive inside me to make a contribution to society. It's a weird feeling. It overrides all of my selfish instincts on the surface. It fascinates me this drive, because it comes from a different place than my surface thoughts.
Now science has an answer for this. Kind of thing.
They have a theory, and it makes sense. The theory is that there are evolutionary "survival of the species" type of biological reasons for human altruism. It makes perfect sense.
And yet I still feel a certain personal relationship with this drive. It feels like an inner morality, like a voice that points me to the right moral choice for every decision I make in my life. I always know the correct moral choice even though I have the free will to ignore it and do the selfish thing.
What else does this inner morality do?
Well it sends shivers up my spine and fills me with joy every time I hear ernest expressions of love, compassion and brotherhood of man. We all cry at the same scenes in the movies. I weep for strangers who don't even exist. This is weird. But thinking that it's weird, doesn't stop me from crying at that phone commercial.

I love this thing in me. Even if the science explanation is true and this thing we all feel is just an evolutionary biological function.
What is the purpose of evolution then?
We don't know. It could be meaningless.
But one thing I do know is that I love this thing that is in me.
I love it, and I have decided to have faith in it.

In my on going attempt to give meaning to my life, I'm going worship my inner moral voice. Because it is so deep inside me and I can not control it, in fact I know the opposite to be true, most of the time, it controls me. But I have never been sorry that I let it lead me down the right path when my surface thoughts would have led me to the wrong decision.
This voice inside me is always right, even when I am wrong. It is truth. It is ultimate morality.
Science also tells us that matter is energy is matter is energy is matter. The entire universe is made of one thing. Energy.
Wow. What a cool metaphysical-like thought that is. I'm going to let my imagination run wild with that one. Cool. Maybe when my body dies, my presence remains in the form of energy. Cool. What a cool thought.
I will decide to personify this inner morality thing and give it a name so that I can worship it, for it is worthy of my worship.
I will call it Shmorf.
I will worship Shmorf.
I will have faith in Shmorf.
It will give my life special meaning if I always strive to please Shmorf. I will tell other people about Shmorf and how I have decided to worship Shmorf.
I think the world would be a better place if we all worshiped Shmorf. Not that I would push Shmorf on anyone else but imagine. I wouldn''t need to push Shmorf on anyone else. Shmorf is already with them and speaks to them in their own way.

Here is the problem. 3 or 4 thousand years ago, somebody realized the power of Shmorf and wrote a book about it. But they added in a whole lot of their own personal feelings about life and attributed them to Shmorf. Then they, instead of suggesting that other people live life for, and worship Shmorf, they demanded it.
They claimed that Shmorf spoke to them in a vision and dictated to them personally a codified dogma that all people must now follow.
Well regular people were pretty dumb back then and didn't have a lot of choice but to believe people who were in positions of power, after all, how would they have gotten into a position of power if they weren't smart. And It makes sense that if Shmorf was going to actually talk to someone in words, he/she would choose the leader of my tribe or the smartest person around. I guess this book is really the word of Shmorf.

Since then many others have written books, supposedly dictated by Shmorf, in an attempt to have their own view of the world attached to Shmorf.

Only these people who wrote these books didn't use the word Shmorf. They used the word God.

I don't believe that any of these people talked to Shmorf. I believe that they made it up, or only think that they talked to Shmorf.
I believe the only way to know Shmorf is through your own internal relationship with Shmorf.

I certainly don't want to make people stop believing in Shmorf.
I just want them to trust Shmorf, and not listen to other people who try and tell them who Shmorf is.
Shmorf is in all of us and speaks to all of us. Not in words. But Shmorf speaks to us.

I am an atheist.
I have faith in God.

For ambiguity reasons, replace God with Shmorf.

We will never, nor should we ever, make people lose their faith in God. We may however, get them to start seeing him as Shmorf.

Anyone with me?

While I respect Bruce’s commendable comments in this forum, and while I have come to see, through those comments, that personal “spiritual” experiences can rationally be considered to be “some” form of evidence for ones personal beliefs, I am not sure that Bruce’s beliefs are as harmless as Timmy might think.

I think that answers to questions like the following would shed some light on how harmless these beliefs are:
- What impact do Bruce’s beliefs have upon his actions?
- Does Bruce vote? If so, how do his beliefs affect his votes?
- Does Bruce draw others to his faith that may end up interpreting Christianity and the Bible in a more harmful way than he does?
- Does Bruce’s standing up and being counted as a Christian (along with others like him) bolster other Christians who have more harmful beliefs than he does? Does it embolden them in advancing their harmful agendas?
- Is Bruce less likely to speak out against other believers' harmful beliefs due to their having a particular faith – or faith itself – in common?
- Does Bruce attempt to instill his faith in children (his or anybody else’s)? If so, how?

Further to that,

Ditto to what Richard Wade said.

E. Favorite,

Definitely. There are many different ways to deal with it.
And I don't discount the validity of DuckPhup's way, in that he is helping to create an environment of zero taboo.

To your comment:
"Being "civil" was fine, but being lady-like or submissive or denying unhealthful behavior got you nowhere."

Nowhere? Really?
In terms of making Bruce Burleson stop believing? Yes.
Just like DuckPhup, I got nowhere.
Nor am I or Duckphup going to get anywhere on that front.
Believe me. I have seen Bruce's faith stand up in the face of three solid weeks of non stop brilliant logical, rational and scientific arguments. From the best.

But did I get nowhere?
I am the only one on either of these threads who got Bruce to start talking to other believers who are way more literal than he is, in a dangerous way. I got him to talk to them, believer to believer, in a way that we can not, to change their thinking.
I got Bruce to see that he can make a difference in this way.
Bruce set up a whole new website for Christians based in a small texas town that will allow all of us to engage a community of believers instead of preaching to each other.

Me and others like me inspired Bruce to make this contribution.
I doubt he would have done this if we were all as mean to him and angry at him as Duckphup seems to be.

I made a pact with Bruce that I would defend him every time I was someone trying to talk him out of his faith. Because he is harmless. He does not vote for Dick Cheney. He does not watch Pat Robertson. He is not waiting for the rapture. And he does not think that we are all going to burn in hell.

I just don't think, in fact I know, that attacking Bruce is pointless.
I am perfectly fine with attacking the likes of Jason Bradfield who tell us that we are all morons and going to Hell.

But Bruce is harmless.
Isn't he?

To Soja and Tammy,
Thank you for the compliments, and now please stop. The last thing I need is a more inflated ego. I don’t want to be admirable; I want an admirable outcome to dialogues such as this.

To E. Favorite,
Thank you also for your compliments, and for your constructive disagreements. If I am starting to sound too absolute, I certainly want to correct that. I’m just not quite sure where I am doing that.

I don’t want to leave the impression that I think we should all “make nice,” or water down our assertions. Certainly anyone coming into a free-wheeling public debate such as this must be ready to take their lumps, especially if they are arrogant, condescending or absurd. But those lumps should be on their arguments and tactics, not on their feelings.

I have been known to slice people to ribbons with sarcasm and ridicule on this website. I can be very good at it, but I’m no longer proud of it. The issue of whether they “deserved” it is beside the point. That kind of selfish sadism produces three undesirable outcomes:
1. My “victim” is further galvanized in his opinion even if he modifies his tactics, and any hateful prejudice he has against people of my opinion is only strengthened.
2. People watching from the sidelines, who are still in the process of deciding on these issues and might be swayed toward my viewpoint are turned off by my brutality. Only the more immature people who already agree with my opinion will be entertained by it.
3. I strengthen only my ego-based ape behavior, and reduce the likelihood of ever having the liberating experiences described by Sam Harris and others at the beginning of this column, of which I am green with envy. If more atheists and theists had that kind of enlightenment, regardless of the context in which they interpret it, our world would be far better off.

I think one helpful distinction to make is the difference between satire and sarcasm. Satire is a powerful way to tell the truth that is not “polite” to say. The intention is to make a positive change. DuckPhup’s hilarious boxing match parody is a good example. (Going along with that analogy by the way, even when faced with an opponent who weighs over three million pounds, the Marquess of Queensberry rules should be followed. Attack the argument, not the arguer; no ad hominem punches below the belt.)

Sarcasm on the other hand is simply a form of cruelty. Its intention is to hurt. It is a display of weakness, not strength. The resultant net loss is spelled out in my three points above. Unfortunately, satire takes more skill than sarcasm, so we see more of the latter.

I don’t want to further distract this conversation with more of my objections to people’s tactics. I’m not the referee. Let’s get back to the interesting substance and topics. Just consider that your tactics can undermine your effect.

Timmy - I think I get what your saying, and I support it. I just want to say - reiterate, really, that I don't think there's one right way, and especially in a forum like this where a person can scroll through and see many views and means of expression.

I think of this as the beginning of a consciousness-raising movement, and see it in terms of the successful civil rights, feminist and anti-smoking movements.

Being "civil" was fine, but being lady-like or submissive or denying unhealthful behavior got you nowhere. Sometimes people needed a crack on the head to open their eyes, sometimes, they didn’t. I think we're all feeling our way and a forum like this is a great place to do it.

Thanks for the link to that Einstien essay, Kate.
Like you, I love reading everyone's stories and I hope it keeps up. I never knew til recently how many of us are cool with being godless.

Soja is right, Richard; we are lucky to have you.

Ooops.

My last post repeats itself due to a cut and paste error.
Sorry. It's ionly half as long as it looks.

DuckPhup,

Of course, contradict anything that Bruce says that you find rational fault with. The Bible is ripe with inconsistencies and contradictions. Bruce agrees with that when I talk to him about it. That is because I respect him even when I disagree with him.
Civility.
You can accomplish your goal of waking people up to reality.
But those people who are on the edge, the ones who can be shown reason and logic, these people will not be swayed by the words: "You are al Insane!" "You are all delusional!" "God is walking contradiction!" "You are blind to the obvious!"

You say it is your obligation to correct people who say such things but you will correct no one with that tone.
You are only preaching to the converted with those kind of words, they reverberate with me, but what good does that do, I'm already with you.
Don't you want people from the other side to switch, and be with you? At least on the political front.
Wouldn't that be doing good instead of alienating further?

I ask you. If someone believes in God. And they have their own personal way of looking at, and relating to God, or Jesus.
And they feel that their faith should most certainly not affect public policy because it is theirs alone and they want to push it on no one. How are they hurting you?
While you might think that they are delusional to believe.
Why do you need to make them not believe?

It's called, pick you battles.
Focus on the solution to the problem, which is not "believers."
It is those believers who want their religious dogma forced on others or into public policy.

I have a friend who is quite fat.
She doesn't eat well or exercise.
I have been trying to encourage her to eat better food and get some exercise. I think I'm making a difference. Because I have done it gently, with understanding.
I would have done no good at all and I would have lost my friend if the way that I dealt with it was to say:
"Look at you, you're a fat pig!"
"Cake makes people fat, it's a scientific fact, you fat fat pig!"
"You can't see the obvious because you are willfully blind!"
"You have been sucked into the fast food craze like a Zombie!"
"Can't you see what a stupid fat pig you are?"

By all means, contradict anything that Bruce says that seems irrational to you.
But do it in a manner that might actually improve the situation.

The language you use is perfectly fine when conversing amongst fellow atheists.
But I promise you, if you talk to Bruce like he was your best friend since you were both five years old, you will see that you both agree on the important issue of dogmatic interference.

Then you will realize that Bruce has a special qualification that makes him an asset in this "battle" against the Gerry Falwells and Ann Coulters of the world.

I'll leave it there. I won't try to convince you to be nicer any more.
It's up to you.
DuckPhup,

Of course, contradict anything that Bruce says that you find rational fault with. The Bible is ripe with inconsistencies and contradictions. Bruce agrees with that when I talk to him about it. That is because I respect him even when I disagree with him.
Civility.
You can accomplish your goal of waking people up to reality.
But those people who are on the edge, the ones who can be shown reason and logic, these people will not be swayed by the words: "You are al Insane!" "You are all delusional!" "God is walking contradiction!" "You are blind to the obvious!"

You say it is your obligation to correct people who say such things but you will correct no one with that tone.
You are only preaching to the converted with those kind of words, they reverberate with me, but what good does that do, I'm already with you.
Don't you want people from the other side to switch, and be with you? At least on the political front.
Wouldn't that be doing good instead of alienating further?

I ask you. If someone believes in God. And they have their own personal way of looking at, and relating to God, or Jesus.
And they feel that their faith should most certainly not affect public policy because it is theirs alone and they want to push it on no one. How are they hurting you?
While you might think that they are delusional to believe.
Why do you need to make them not believe?

It's called, pick you battles.
Focus on the solution to the problem, which is not "believers."
It is those believers who want their religious dogma forced on others or into public policy.

I have a friend who is quite fat.
She doesn't eat well or exercise.
I have been trying to encourage her to eat better food and get some exercise. I think I'm making a difference. Because I have done it gently, with understanding.
I would have done no good at all and I would have lost my friend if the way that I dealt with it was to say:
"Look at you, you're a fat pig!"
"Cake makes people fat, it's a scientific fact, you fat fat pig!"
"You can't see the obvious because you are willfully blind!"
"You have been sucked into the fast food craze like a Zombie!"
"Can't you see what a stupid fat pig you are?"

By all means, contradict anything that Bruce says that seems irrational to you.
But do it in a manner that might actually improve the situation.

The language you use is perfectly fine when conversing amongst fellow atheists.
But I promise you, if you talk to Bruce like he was your best friend since you were both five years old, you will see that you both agree on the important issue of dogmatic interference.

Then you will realize that Bruce has a special qualification that makes him an asset in this "battle" against the Gerry Falwells and Ann Coulters of the world.

Just my thoughts.
Proceed as you wish.
I'll drop it now.

Good morning,

Personal Story is what I love best. This forum is like sitting around the campfire, swapping our “quest” stories.

When Ron mentioned that he distanced himself from his family as he "grew his athieism" so as not to "have broken hearts in the family" … I shivered and said, “Oh, you, too?”

When I left for Australia in 1969, my mother said, “This is the saddest day of my life to think a daughter would leave her home.” (Remember I lived in County Wexford transported to Chicago’s South Side.) I left anyway, like Ron—to be myself (like Robin) and mercifully not to experiment under my family’s eyes. Then California, then Northern New Mexico.

Then some Christians drop into our camp, sit on a log and share some roasted hotdogs or marshmallows, and the conversation changes. But I still prefer the story swap. But who could deny enjoying an occasional satirical riff on the caliber of Swift’s "A Modest Proposal" or a straight forward “this I believe” like Einstein’s 1930 essay "On Religion and Science?"

Enjoy the day.

Kate

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/einsteinsgod/einstein-religionandscience.shtml

One time i thought id conduct a little experiment-
it was a spiritual experiment- its a reproducible one- but i cannot be assured that the conclusions would be the same- it is likely they would be deeper and improved- it is funny how in challenging peoples beliefs it seems osme atheists actually remind us of them causing us to reinforce them on our own-

evidenced by louise above

are large hearts and open minds desirable attributes in humans? i think so

i was watching a leaf being blown by the wind on the beach- and i wanted to become that leaf- so i wetmy finger and whichever way the wind blew i went that way- all day- even into someones house-
amazingly the people inside werent at all surprised by my reason for being there and even offered me a pina colada- which i declined because i was busy- as the wind was picking up- i followed the wind all day and had many interesting and unusual encounters- but the best thing of all was the relaxed and accepting attitudes i encountered-
the tolerance for my strange little journey-

i would speculate that it was an absolutely fearless day- because specifically i had such a strong faith in the protection of god- it was a hyper intuitive kind of day- andnoamount of criticism can diminish the solid stenghth of that experience-

i think alot of people have such a strong fear and ntense desire to control that they can never let go of those things- is it willfully ignorant or irrational? is facing your deepest fears and conquering them ignorant? is opening your mind to consider the entire make up of the universe close minded?

it wont make any difference if someone tries to tear it apart- that is justr their anxiety speaking.
i know what it is for me- and it was the seedlings of total faith-
maybe someday well discover that our thoughts vibrate in a certain sympathetic electro magnetic way that attracts and repulses certain people to us- maybe out thoughts themselves have a will to manifest into being- but it doesnt need to be proven or disproven to me-
it is what it is
peace

Sam,

Another excellent article. Thank you again the intent of your important work. You make your points so clearly that it's hard to grasp why there is so much hostility to your work. The negative responses you receive betray a wilful ignorance of your finer points The refusal of your critics to engage your thesis honestly merely shows a deep agenta to cling to irration doctrines and creeds at all costs.

You have started an important dialogue and I hope that your articles and books can go beyond getting agreement only from like-minded (and open minded) respondants. For my part I feel that I understand the intent of your new article very well. I have been a close friend of Douglas Harding sinse we met in 1971 having done thousands of hours of workshops with him and other friends throughout Europe, Canada and the United States over the past 35 years.

I feel that there is a deep and direct way
to engage irrational doctirnes by getting to the philosophical roots of the problem. My scholarly work with the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein has made clear to me the unconscious misuse of language in doctrinal religions. His thoughts on mysticism and language can form a bridge between the thrust of your first book and this recent article regarding consciousness. Crudely, Wittgenstein talked the talk and Douglas Harding has spent a lifetime not only walking the walk but also talking the talk in very clear terms.

Many thanks,

Phil Dubuque

I am one of the 'dangerous' people that Sam descibes allows people to do evil things in the name of religion because I feel everyone is fully entitled to their own beliefs/opinions/lives. For that reason, Sam too is entitled to believe that his ideas may one day change the world. I hope they do - God knows I hope anything does - but deep deep in my soul, I don't believe that anything will change mankind for a long long long time, religion or no religion or replacements for religion.

When I was 35, I was on a businesstrip in the south. A southern colleague (and a bit of a whackjob, in retrospect) asked me after a few beers: "Do you believe in God?" I answered, "well Yes." He asked, "Do you pray?" "yes" "To whom?" "God" - He was checking to make sure I was 'one of them' - - - but that short conversation during which my ears heard me speak those words aloud to a stranger, were enough to send me back to church after 15 odd years of Catholic-ritual-a-phobia. Maybe it can be true, I thought. I prayed. I went to church every Sunday for 6 years.

Then I read Sam's book and here I am.
Be well,
Louise

TIMMY wrote:
Duckphup,
Do you think you did it that time?
Do you think you talked Bruce out of his faith?
If not, will you do it soon?
Nope.
Do you need to?
Will it help?
Nope.

He is working thing out. Be gentle.

... etc...

Alright.
let me have it.

*************

OK... here it is.

Bruce thinks he is in direct communication with Jesus, They have a name for that, you know... it is called 'schizoaffective disorder'. He is deluded. His delusions may be 'benign' in your opinion, because he does not get you all cranked up... but they are delusions, all the same.

I agree that Bruce is a nice guy... I like him, actually. In a cordial social setting, I am sure that I would enjoy Bruce's company very much, and that we would get along famously. I wouldn't even DREAM of bringing up the subject of religion and confronting him about it.

But this isn't a cordial social setting... this is a battleground in a war of ideas. An abstract arena in which paradigms are in conflict. (Laaaadddddies and gentlemen... in this corner, in the white trunks, weighing in at 220 pounds, we have rationality, critical thought and intellectual honnnnnesssstyyyy. In the opposing corner, wearing black trunks and weighing in at 3,240,000 pounds, we have willful ignorance, closed-mindedness and self-deluuuusion. Let's get reaaaadddyyy to rumbllleee.)

When someone professes beliefs such as Bruce's in a public forum such as this, I regard it as my ethical duty and moral obligation as a rational and capable human being to CONFRONT those assertions, and try to demonstrate WHY and HOW said beliefs are stupid and irrelevant. I do NOT do this for the benefit of Bruce, or for the specific benefit of ANY particular poster to whom I happen to be responding... in fact, I consider them to be hopelessly lost, generally. I just happen to understand that there are tens of thousands of people... hundreds of thousands, maybe... who visit this forum because they are genuinely, sincerely, SEEKING ANSWERS. They eagerly read and absorb the opinions and the reasoning of others... but they do not participate, because they lack confidence. Their world view is in flux. They are trying to sort sense from nonsense... young, vulnerable minds who are in the process of forming and stabilizing their world-view, or people who have come to question what they have been taught and what they believe. It is for THEIR benefit that I confront Bruce... not for Bruce's benefit. To me, his words (and others) represent nothing more than grist for the mill. It is my (self-appointed) job to try to protect vulnerable minds from incorporating poisonous paradigms and dangerous delusions into their self-description by ruthlessly DEMOLISHING those paradigms and delusions wherever I encounter them.

If I understand you correctly, when Bruce presents some inane belief, you would have me give him a free pass because he comes across as a decent human being... but if Jason were to present the same idea, I ought to pounce on him because he's basically a jerk.

(Sigh)... I wish it were that simple.

It is the beliefs and opinions that I am confronting, not the individual who espouses them. Well... mostly. (Sometimes my frustration shines through when I encounter someone who does not possess the intellectual acuity to even understand what I'm saying... I guess I ought to watch out for that.)

Thanks for your input, though... I appreciate it. I see and respect where you're coming from... I just don't happen to agree with it.

Hello Richard Wade:

You have a nice style and philosophy, but you’re starting to sound too absolute to me.

Yours is not necessarily the only way that works. I know in my life I’ve sometimes learned a lot from someone who jolted me into a reality I didn’t want to hear and hadn’t been ready to accept. I may not have liked the person for what they said and may have even repelled it at the time, but it stuck with me.

I think, especially in an anonymous discussion like this, people have an opportunity to hear and express views that would not be expressed so easily in “polite” company. It’s also a way to hear different points of view by eavesdropping - a wonderful opportunity not otherwise available, as far as I know.

Maybe I’m less sensitive than most, but getting blasted on this forum is quite mild compared to getting blasted in front of a group of friends or colleagues. There’s much less ego involved. Consider that most people are already anonymous and can just drop out without shamefully slinking away. They can also peek back in without anyone knowing.

And don’t be so sure that “no one’s going to lose, gain or change their religion based on this discussion.” For some, this could be a turning point. Different strokes for different folks.

Other than that, I say, carry on Richard – I enjoy and learn from your perspective, even though I don’t completely share it.

To RICHARD WADE:

You are one of the atheists I admire. Thank you for being a part of this discussion and contributing in the way you did.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Timmy,
Thank you for your last post. Half of the time I can't understand what you are saying, but that was both lucid and right on target.
(I'm not slighting you; I take responsibility for my lack of understanding)
Yes, we need to be gentle and respectful to Christians who want to make their creed better instead of more powerful. And we should encourage non-believers to do better than clever put-downs and history-quoting rants. Nobody's going to lose, gain or change their religion as a result of this discussion. You're right also to point out that arrogance is contagious. Attempts to vanquish others is shameful, ego-based ape behavior, and it helps none of us. When someone has a statement that will result in better understanding and cooperation, I sit up and listen. The most elaborate, eloquent arguments about how "I'm right and you suck," I just scroll right on by. I couldn't care less, even if I agree with the "side" they're on. Those who sit back from their keyboards thinking, "Well I sure showed him." won't be remembered tomorrow.

Ron,

No, I hadn't read you as bitter, angry or overlycharged. I did and do read you as being very sad. Understandably. I have never lost a child and it has to be the hardest loss of all.

When my youngest son was born in distress. The doctors told me the next 24 hours would be crucial. It was a very tough time for me. I can remember sitting beside his incubator the whole time talking to him. Telling him about his new family and asking him to hold on to be able to come home from the hospital and start his new life with us. He made it through with little complications. He had very good doctors. I will always be eternally grateful to them.

With the loved ones I have lost. The only solice I could find was through the love and support from friends and family. And time. The way I try to honor those losses is by laughter. Thinking back at the good times we had together to share. Thinking of the funny goofy things and laughing. I try to stay away of thinking about the amount of time. The amount is never enough. I try to stay away from thinking about the age they left this world. I can't say I am always successful, but I try when I get near that train of thought to turn it back around and think of individual situations with them that are uplifting. And I still talk to them when I need to. And I know what they would tell me many times if they were still here and sometimes we have arguments, but hey they always set me straight. *smile* Its been over 30 years since my most important loss, it still hurts, but it has softened. Thats the best I can tell you Ron, is time.

I think my truest truth is to be who I am always.
No pretense. To understand myself, to accept myself and show my true self outwardly to others. Not pretend I am something I am not. With that I have to accept that some will not understand, like or agree with me. And thats ok, they don't have to. Just as I don't have to with them.

I struggle just like everyone. But I don't struggle about who I am.

Take care.

Robin,

The loss of our daughter was nearly 6 years ago now, so my decisions and conclusions about it are sane and clear. Deep emotional experiences are the very force of life, and sometimes they comes out as low-grade anger, as it naturally should. I'm sorry if came across as bitter, angry, or overlycharged about it. I'm very cool with life now. I really appreciate your perspective here.

Actually, my once-strong and deep faith started unraveling 20 years ago. So this is much larger than a recent anger/loss based reaction. I was angry at my Christian implants for many years, and a teenager's death simply root-canal ignited the finishing realizations. But I didn't want to have broken hearts in the family while I grew my athiesism with proof and certainty, so I distanced myself from them for years, until I knew we all were grown up enough to handle it.

But I was also taking on universal 'what is the essence of everything' questions (aren't we all ?) for much of my life (with both a strong religious and scientific background), making real progress on some incredible realizations. The problem is, along the journey, I was hung-up on wronging unexamined Biblical "Truth", and wondering why my own family wasn't interested in the transformational results I'd tapped into. My friends say I should write a book (don't they all :-).

But as deep as the childhood hope had been that we get to live forever, it has been painfully sad yet undeniable and powerfully true how, given our finite existence, I now value life beyond words, each hour of each day, and the people I am priviledged to know.

Thank-you, Robin.

Ron

P.S. What is the truest truth that you know ?

James asked:
"Actually the more I think about it, it seems more magical that something was created out of nothing. Would that be considered a miracle?"

And:
"I nevered[sic] asked that question. I asked Pam about magic. Do you see anything magic or mystical about the believing the universe was created, when science confirms that it did have a starting point?"

James, you must know by now that the very concept of "miracles", not to mention magic, is anathema to rational people, so what would you expect my answer to be?

You said it would be more magical to believe that something was *created* out of nothing. This is the language of religion, not science. No scientist who espouses the Big Bang believes that it came from nothing. And the BB is only the starting point (assuming that it's true - it is presently hypothesis) for the universe that we know and live in - not the beginning of time or the beginning of all possible universes.

I'm not going to try to tell you about ultimate origins - human knowledge is not presently at a place where we can do more than speculate about such things. And I can barely do that. I'm not a quantum physicist, and what I do know about quantum theory I have trouble wrapping my brain around.

My personal way of thinking about it is that energy is eternal, and from energy comes matter. If you want to think of energy as God, I have no problem with that, although I think it's silly.

Where I draw the line is with the thought that an anthropomorphic diety who feels jealousy, anger, and wreaks vengeance; who knows the thoughts of every creature on Earth at all times; who intervenes in the world by subverting natural law; and who sacrificed his son, who was himself, so that we could be forgiven our sins (why not just forgive them?). To me this is patently absurd to the point that I wonder about the "sapiens" part of our species name.

Duckphup,

Do you think you did it that time?
Do you think you talked Bruce out of his faith?
If not, will you do it soon?
Nope.
Do you need to?
Will it help?
Nope.

Look, I'm with you on the Bible. No one has more nasty things to say about the Bible than I do, and you say them better than me, so I have been enjoying.
But I have nothing bad to say about Bruce Burleson or believers like him.
You will not talk people out of their faith, but you can talk TO believers like Bruce about the evils of the church(s) and dogmatic interference into public policy, and Bruce will listen with an open mind if you are not attacking him.
Notice that Bruce defends only his faith in, the love and compassion message of Christ, not the church.
Bruce is open to criticism of the church. And the Bible.
He is working thing out. Be gentle.
Bruce is more of an asset than your are right now in the fight to help us take down the likes Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter.
Bruce is an asset to our plight if we treat this loving man with respect.

Bruce has rejected all of the evil fire and brimstone stuff that the church pushes.
He is losing his church Jesus, and finding his personal Jesus.
This is the very opposite of problematic.

I'm not telling you what to do DuckPhup
If you want to continue riding the rush of flexing your intellectual muscle on a subject that you have mastered, I get it. I've done it. It's fun.
We have pointed out the problem ad nauseam.
Let's look to the solution.
It's not making people like Bruce lose their faith by attacking it or them.
It is Bruce Burleson. And those like him. Finding personal faith, to replace the fire and brimstone faith of their parents. Spotting the impostors and hypocrites in the church. Working it all out.
Be gentle.
Not with Jason Bradfield.
But with Bruce Burleson.
Be gentle.

Don't allow your need to make people of faith, not believe, be so intense that it becomes as creepy as Jason Bradfield's need to make us moron atheists believe.

Alright.
let me have it.

Whats that saying, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity...........

In the 2000 years since Jesus, the magnitude of human suffrage and death dwarfs that which came before him. Jesus was the middle point of an ever escalating religious cycle of violence and death that continues to this day. If his supposed teaching were as beautiful and wonderful as claimed by those who endlessly preach that we need to return to them, how is it that they had no positive affect on human suffrage. How were they lost in the first place and never found in over 2000 years? A few people scattered over time claiming to know the true message doesn't solve the issue, it leads to 33,000 different churches fighting one another. An instruction manual that 99.999% of the faithful can't understand of follow is worthless has to go. I would of expected much higher quality documentation from the Son of God. But then again he was coming right back, so why bother. Going back would only start the cycle anew and lead right back to dogmatic religion again. To change anything a new kind of follower would be necessary, a more ignorant, dispassionate and unambitious human [think cow], in order to follow his incoherent and unrealistic teachings. Pretty, but borrowed [stolen] quotes aside.

So how many more 1000s of years will people try and fail to get back to Jesus before that get tired and look for something productive to pursue.

psst, Bruce -- the true Jesus never went to the grave.

Gad wrote: "Not even my wrong word usage it should read sacrifice not "suffice" DOH!"

Cerebral flatulence. It happens to me all the time. Don't worry about it. I was able to figure out what you meant based upon context.

*** DuckPhup says:
Gad... I see nothing to take issue with in your post.

Not even my wrong word usage it should read sacrifice not "suffice" DOH!

sac·ri·fice
3 a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost

It played right in my head when I did it.....

Bruce Burleson wrote:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

DuckPhup says: Puhleeze... (gack)... those are slogans! Do you think they were invented by your imaginary supernatural sky-fairy? Sure, they represent good moral guidelines... but do you imagine that the first time that they appeared was in the Wholly Babble? I don't know about the first one, but I am aware that many different ancient cultures... including some that pre-date the bible... had slogans that were nearly identical to the second and the third. The early Jews went around sucking up and amalgamating appealing myths (such as the creation story), superstitions and 'wisdom' of the various peoples that they encountered and slaughtered, or who enslaved them.

It is clear, and acknowledged by most mainstream Old Testament scholars, that the early Israelites believed in the existence of other gods... and it was the custom of the time that different gods held sway in different geograpic areas. When people moved from one area to another, people were expected to switch their alliegence to the local diety. The Israelites' innovation was to invent a god that they could take with them (he lived in the Ark of the Covenant), and elevated his importance to 'creator of the world'.

The fact that followers of the Abrahamic death cults of desert monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), in the 21st century, continue to base their world-view on the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of a bunch of ignorant Bronze Age fishermen and wandering goat-herders is shameful and disgusting. They are willfully ignorant and self-deluded. They should be ridiculed at every opportunity.

**************

Gad... I see nothing to take issue with in your post.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." "Love thy neighbor as thyself." I do not agree with Duckphup that CHRISTIANITY still has a long way to go before it catches up with enlightened secular morality. I do agree that CHRISTIANS have a long way to go, and have failed miserably over the centuries (for the most part) in practicing what they preach. As this discourse begins to strip away the falsity of dogmatic religion, perhaps we will see the true Jesus emerging from the grave once again.

*** DuckPhup says:
You would do well to take note that rational people recognize that it is deeds, actions, decisions and thoughts that we deem to be right/wrong, good/evil... not 'things'. No thing and/or no entity that existed, presently exists or ever will exist is inherently, innately good or evil. However, as we observe the dynamic interactions of entities and things over time, we may 'judge' entities to be 'evil' based upon their deeds, actions, decisions and thoughts, and the CONSEQUENCES of their deeds, actions, decisions and thoughts.

No disagreement. But based on that same criteria I deem that torture is an evil thing and that 99.999% of it is done for the fear, power and enjoyment of the act. Now, would I do it to save millions of lives, yes. I would even do it to save just my wife or children's lives. This does not make it less wrong in my eyes, it is just me doing something I think is wrong in order to get something that I value more. This is a suffice of principle on my part, I do not want to be, nor should I be considered a hero or honored for doing such a thing, only pitied for the misfortune of being put in the position of having to make such a choice. No law should every be make by any country making torture acceptable, that is wrong and will only lead to abuse and corruption. Those who choose to torture [suffice them self] for the greater good should still be held fully accountable for the act, not the result.

I wonder how many people would torture someone sufficing their own life to save millions Vs torturing someone and living and be honored for saving those millions. Not nearly as many I would suspect...........

*******
Part 2
*******

TIM wrote: "Now going back to Hitler, the Germans thought that he was right (I know you do not believe in right or wrong, but play along with me)..."

*** DuckPhup says: I never said that I did not 'believe' in right and wrong (Good and evil, actually... but that's a mere quibble). I said that they have no corporeal form of existence in the universe. I said that they are not 'things'... they are 'abstract dualistic concepts'. They are a part of the social lubrication that allows us to coexist amicably... a part of our culture. I said that morality... and thereby the CRITERIA by which we judge actions to be right/wrong, good/evil, are EVOLVED human characteristics. You would do well to take note that rational people recognize that it is deeds, actions, decisions and thoughts that we deem to be right/wrong, good/evil... not 'things'. No thing and/or no entity that existed, presently exists or ever will exist is inherently, innately good or evil. However, as we observe the dynamic interactions of entities and things over time, we may 'judge' entities to be 'evil' based upon their deeds, actions, decisions and thoughts, and the CONSEQUENCES of their deeds, actions, decisions and thoughts. Most people (myself included) would have absolutely no hesitation in pointing at Hitler, and declaring emphatically, and with great conviction, that "he is EVIL"... but there is nothing 'objective', or 'absolute' about any of this. Again... god/evil is an abstract CONCEPT, not a 'thing'. Let's try an easier word... good/evil is an 'idea'... that's all. We apply that idea in the ways that we have LEARNED to apply it... that's all.

We may judge the 'rack' (a torture device) to be 'evil'... but it is not. It is what people DO with it that is 'evil'. But, if you happened to capture an 'evil' person, who you knew had planted a 10 megaton nuclear device in downtown Manhattan, and you knew that it would explode within one hour, killing millions, and you had a 'rack' handy with which to persuade this evil person to give up the location of the device, would it be 'evil' for you to use it, or any other brutal device or means necessary to extract the information? In such a circumstance, would you be eagerly inserting bamboo splinters under the subject's fingernails, and setting them afire, if you thought that it would garner the information you sought? Would that make YOU evil? Would your ACTIONS be evil? Are the bamboo splinters 'evil'? Would you regrettably let millions of people perish because you were paralyzed by fears of how your actions might effect your potential afterlife... i.e., would you permit millions of people to die, so that you could be 'sure' of your place in heaven? Would you risk going to hell, in order to give millions of people a chance of continued life on this plane of existence, or would you permit them (and yourself) to be blown up (god's will) so as to be sorted out heaven/hell immediately afterward? What would the imaginary, supernatural sky-fairy's "objective" moral emanations require of you? (Those questions are purely rhetorical... I do not expect an answer.) ***

TIM wrote: "... based on their society."

*** DuckPhup says: To the contrary, most Germans did NOT think that he was right. Most of them did not even KNOW about the atrocities which were committed at his behest, and in THEIR name. They could not even imagine that anyone would/could commit such evil deeds.

You need to read some books... about two per week, for the next 30 years or so; THEN you might have sufficient knowledge to carry on an intelligent conversation. ***

TIM wrote: "You agree that it is just our opinion that he was morally wrong in committing genocide."

*** DuckPhup says: It is not 'just our opinion' that Hitler was morally wrong in committing genocide. It is not 'just an opinion' that causes us to declare Hitler to be profoundly 'evil'. It is a weighty moral judgement. It is the moral judgement of EVERY sane, rational human being. By your choice of words, you attempt to trivialize what are in fact crucial, important matters. You convey the sense that such judgements are superflous if they are arrived at merely by the cumulative moral wisdom of humanity... and that such judgements are significant only if they acknowledge and conform with the decrees of some morally superior supernatural (and imaginary) sky-fairy... i.e., god. That, my friend, makes you a very sorry excuse for a human being... and nuts, too.

Morality is, for the most part, a matter of cultural consensus... EVOLVING cultural consensus. Please take historical note that the greatest strides in moral thought and behavior occurred AFTER the vile oppression of christianist hegemony was thrown off in the 'Age of Enlightenment'. In other words, moral concepts have advanced since then IN SPITE OF christianity, not because of it... and christianity still has quite a ways to go before it catches up with enlightened secular morality. ***

"This is because of the surge of true personal spirituality that will replace dogmatic religions"

The spirituality folks may not be riding the God ride but they definitely have season passes to the same metal theme parks as well as reality vacation time shares.

This is why Atheists should distance them self from such folks, as they are kissing cousins of the religious. Sadly as well spoken as Sam Harris is I must look upon him as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

I just happened to notice my previous post, while scrolling, and noticed that it was essentially unintelligible. I wrote it in a text editor, then copied and pasted it. It seems that it was overly long, for one thing, and it also seems that the server does not like the angle-brackets that I used for seperators. So, I am posting it again, broken into two parts, and minus the angle seperators... hopefully, it will make more sense this time.

*******
Part 1
*******

TIM wrote: "Thank you Duckphup. At least I got an honest answer. Also, I have read E.O Wilson about altruism and everything else that you are saying. I do not care about your views on humanity, religion or anything else that you stated. That is besides the point. Based on your reply I would take it that you believe it is strictly society that determines what is right or wrong based on democracy, since there are not objective morals, just the illusion. Now going back to Hitler, the Germans thought that he was right (I know you do not believe in right or wrong, but play along with me) based on their society. You agree that it is just our opinion that he was morally wrong in committing genocide."

*** DuckPhup says: Tim... I'm sorry to say this, but I think that you have a huge problem with reading comprehension, and absolutely no capacity for subtle thought and critical thinking. Of course, that is true of MOST christianists... and it explains, in part, why they ARE christianists in the first place. If you knew how to think properly, you would not BE a christianist. ***

TIM wrote: "I do not care about your views on humanity, religion or anything else that you stated. That is besides the point."

*** DuckPhup says: Huh? NONE of that is "besides (sic) the point"... to the contrary, it IS the point. They are, in varying degrees, the SOURCES of morality. ***

TIM wrote: "Based on your reply I would take it that you believe it is strictly society that determines what is right or wrong based on democracy... "

*** DuckPhup says: That is a foolish statement... it implies that people who live in other than democratic societies have no way of making moral judgments, or that moral criteria arise from people sitting around and talking about it for a while, and then taking a vote.

That you make such a statement after reading what has preceded your post reveals that you have not comprehended what you have read, and that you do not have the capacity to parse the language that you purport to speak. ***

TIM wrote: "...since there are not objective morals, just the illusion."

*** DuckPhup says: Rational people know that morality is entirely subjective. One lives a moral life by operating within the abstract framework of behavior that society deems to be acceptable. Society does not need written laws in order for people to recognize that somebody who goes around killing people, or stealing their stuff, or raping their women does not belong among them.

That you extracted the assertion "...since there are not objective morals, just the illusion" from what I wrote is a virtuoso exhibition of lame, muddled, shallow, non-critical thinking. Of course, I expect nothing else from your ilk. For rational people, there is no 'illusion' of 'objective morals'. That 'illusion' exists ONLY for people who have DELUDED themselves into thinking that 'morality' is an emanation from some imaginary supernatural sky-fairy. You have a very bad habit of projecting your own mental/intellectual deficiencies and delusional beliefs onto others. ***

Thank you for continuing this series of essays/articles. It really inspires us ‘shyer’ Atheists to speak out a bit more. I am glad you so eloquently touched up on this matter of ‘subjective spiritual experiences’ as I like to call it. It’s funny how my friends can’t seem to understand that I get the same feeling of calm and peace in The Bhagavad-Gita or the The Teachings of Buddha—in fact more so than I did as a Christian reading my Bible. All this despite the fact that I read these texts with sharp skepticism as opposed to the blind acceptance I gave the Bible. My Christian friends simply insist this it is my lack of will to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior that keeps me from realizing the Bible is true Word of God. It’s like talking to a wall.

www.myspace.com/roiscience

Duckphup, you frickin' rock!

Timmy, I am with you. I would like to see some sort of return to spiritualism, though, I think it would be pretty hard in our materialistic society.

James

Do I detect shades of Jason Bradfield?

Linda Joy--I must say, you are appropriately named (the joy part that is). Thanks for making me openly laugh...me thinks you might be on to something. And Frankania, um...my initials are JCR (Jesus Christ Resurrected) and I got a memo, and, um, it said, you ARE the Universe, so get busy and start doing something about world poverty and hunger! just kidding of course. (Although, if you join ONE.org, you can actually do something about those two things.)

When my Aunt was in the process of dying, she would at times be peaceful, at other times she seemed stressed. When she appeared stressed (and oddly enough she was itchy) I rubbed her head and repeated 'you are loved' and scratched where she seemed to need it. At one point her eyes flashed open; they were a watery blue like a newborn's eyes. I can't recall if the pupils were large or small, only that they were two dense pools of blue. She would suddenly reach upwards--it was as if she couldn't see me as well as she could "see" something else. It was hard to tell what "reality" was for her at that time...I can only hope that the brain is kind death, until then, Gold Key anyone?
ONE love, J.
p.s. Soja, if your definition of god is the christian one it is a wrathful, jealous and smiteful god...who, by the way, only cared about the jews. The apostle paul is thought to have shamelessly brought the heathens into "the fold" as it were.That is why I requested that you re-define your god. And if your definition is not the one provided in the bible, of which you so willingly promote, then you, Soja, are not being honest with yourself. I do love ya though, and your fine country. : )

Timmy: Why is it a choice between a meaningless universe that just appeared out of nothingness,
and God of the Abrahamic Bible?

I nevered asked that question. I asked Pam about magic. Do you see anything magic or mystical about the believing the universe was created, when science confirms that it did have a starting point?

James

And James,

To your hope that atheism will die out one day, I have some devastating news for you.

The category of "Non Religious" has recently replaced "Muslim" as the fastest growing demographic in the world.

How is this possible? Believers have more babies. How is this possible?

Answer: The Internet.

The lack of access to knowledge by the masses, has always been the churches most powerful weapon. Keep m stupid, then they'll believe anything we say.

The internet. Ultimate access to all knowledge for all.

Bye Bye organized religion. What are you going to do with your last couple of generations? Because that's all you have left.

Many predictions at the turn of the millennium postulate that this millennium will be a return to spiritualism.
Religions rejoiced at this news.
But the prediction said nothing of religion.
Spirituality.
This is because of the surge of true personal spirituality that will replace dogmatic religions.

Bye Bye

James,

Why is it a choice between a meaningless universe that just appeared out of nothingness,
and God of the Abrahamic Bible.

Aren't there an infinite number of possibilities as to the origin of the universe?

No body is calling for the faithful to stop having faith in God.
We just want you all to stop having faith in the people who tell you who God is, and present you with a very long list of rules for how you are to run your life. Because God told them so.
Trust your own communication with God directly.
Why would faith in God ever need to be externalized, and codified.

Again, if I understand you correctly:
If the God of the Abrahamic faiths is not true, then the only other answer is that the universe is meaningless?

Huh?

I agree with Duckphup. Christians suck!!!

Thomas

Pam

Actually the more I think about it, it seems more magical that something was created out of nothing. Would that be considered a miracle?

James

TIM wrote: "Thank you Duckphup. At least I got an honest answer. Also, I have read E.O Wilson about altruism and everything else that you are saying. I do not care about your views on humanity, religion or anything else that you stated. That is besides the point. Based on your reply I would take it that you believe it is strictly society that determines what is right or wrong based on democracy, since there are not objective morals, just the illusion. Now going back to Hitler, the Germans thought that he was right (I know you do not believe in right or wrong, but play along with me) based on their society. You agree that it is just our opinion that he was morally wrong in committing genocide."

>> Tim... I'm sorry to say this, but I think that you have a huge problem with reading comprehension, and absolutely no capacity for subtle thought and critical thinking. Of course, that is true of MOST christianists... and it explains, in part, why they ARE christianists in the first place. If you knew how to think properly, you would not BE a christianist.

Tim: "I do not care about your views on humanity, religion or anything else that you stated. That is besides the point."

>> Huh? NONE of that is "besides (sic) the point"... to the contrary, it IS the point. They are, in varying degrees, the SOURCES of morality.

Tim: "Based on your reply I would take it that you believe it is strictly society that determines what is right or wrong based on democracy... "

>> That is a foolish statement... it implies that you think I am asserting that people who live in other than democratic societies have no way of making moral judgments, or that moral criteria arise from people sitting around and talking about it for a while, and then taking a vote.

That you make such a statement after reading what has preceded your post reveals that you have not comprehended what you have read, that you do not have the capacity to parse the language that you purport to speak, and that you are impervious to the subtleties of language.

Tim: "...since there are not objective morals, just the illusion."

>> Rational people know that morality is entirely subjective. One lives a moral life by operating within the abstract framework of behavior that society deems to be acceptable. Society does not need written laws in order for people to recognize that somebody who goes around killing people, or stealing their stuff, or raping their women, does not belong among them.

That you extracted the assertion "...since there are not objective morals, just the illusion" from what I wrote is a virtuoso exhibition of lame, muddled, shallow, non-critical thinking. Of course, I expect nothing else from your ilk. For rational people, there is no 'illusion' of 'objective morality'. That 'illusion' exists ONLY for people who have DELUDED themselves into thinking that 'morality' is an emanation from some imaginary supernatural sky-fairy. You have a very bad habit of projecting your own mental/intellectual deficiencies and delusional beliefs onto others.

Tim: "Now going back to Hitler, the Germans thought that he was right (I know you do not believe in right or wrong, but play along with me)..."

>> I never said that I did not 'believe' in right and wrong (Good and evil, actually... but that's a mere quibble). I said that they have no corporeal form of existence in the universe. I said that they are not 'things'... they are 'abstract dualistic concepts'. They are a part of the social lubrication that allows us to coexist amicably... a part of our culture. I said that morality... and thereby the CRITERIA by which we judge actions to be right/wrong, good/evil, are EVOLVED human characteristics. You would do well to take note that rational people recognize that it is deeds, actions, decisions and thoughts that we deem to be right/wrong, good/evil... not 'things'. No thing and/or no entity that existed, presently exists or ever will exist is inherently, innately good or evil. However, as we observe the dynamic interactions of entities and things over time, we may 'judge' entities to be 'evil' based upon their deeds, actions, decisions and thoughts, and the CONSEQUENCES of their deeds, actions, decisions and thoughts. Most people (myself included) would have absolutely no hesitation in pointing at Hitler, and declaring emphatically, and with great conviction, that "he is EVIL"... but there is nothing 'objective', or 'absolute' about any of this. Again... god/evil is an abstract CONCEPT, not a 'thing'. Let's try an easier word... good/evil is an 'idea'... that's all. We apply that idea in the ways that we have LEARNED to apply it... that's all.

We may judge the 'rack' (a torture device) to be 'evil'... but it is not. It is what people DO with it that is 'evil'. But, if you happened to capture an 'evil' person, who you knew had planted a 10 megaton nuclear device in downtown Manhattan, and you knew that it would explode within one hour, killing millions, and you had a 'rack' handy with which to persuade this evil person to give up the location of the device, would it be 'evil' for you to use it, or any other brutal device or means necessary to extract the information? In such a circumstance, would you be eagerly inserting bamboo splinters under the subject's fingernails, and setting them afire, if you thought that it would garner the information you sought? Would that make YOU evil? Would your ACTIONS be evil? Are the bamboo splinters 'evil'? Would you regrettably let millions of people perish because you were paralyzed by fears of how your actions might effect your potential afterlife... i.e., would you permit millions of people to die, so that you could be 'sure' of your place in heaven? Would you risk going to hell, in order to give millions of people a chance of continued life on this plane of existence, or would you permit them (and yourself) to be blown up (god's will) so as to be sorted out heaven/hell immediately afterward? What would the imaginary, supernatural sky-fairy's "objective" moral emanations require of you? (Those questions are purely rhetorical... I do not expect an answer.)

Tim: "... based on their society."

>> To the contrary, most Germans did NOT think that he was right. Most of them did not even KNOW about the atrocities which were committed at his behest, and in THEIR name. They could not even imagine that anyone would/could commit such evil deeds.

You need to read some books... about two per week, for the next 30 years or so; THEN you might have sufficient knowledge to carry on an intelligent conversation.

Tim: "You agree that it is just our opinion that he was morally wrong in committing genocide."

>> It is not 'just our opinion' that Hitler was morally wrong in committing genocide. It is not 'just an opinion' that causes us to declare Hitler to be profoundly 'evil'. It is a weighty moral judgement. It is the moral judgement of EVERY sane, rational human being. By your choice of words, you attempt to trivialize what are in fact crucial, important matters. You convey the sense that such judgements are superflous if they are arrived at merely by the cumulative moral wisdom of humanity... and that such judgements are significant only if they acknowledge and conform with the decrees of some morally superior supernatural (and imaginary) sky-fairy... i.e., god. That, my friend, makes you a very sorry excuse for a human being... and nuts, too.

Morality is, for the most part, a matter of cultural consensus... EVOLVING cultural consensus. Please take historical note that the greatest strides in moral thought and behavior occurred AFTER the vile oppression of christianist hegemony was thrown off in the 'Age of Enlightenment'. In other words, moral concepts have advanced since then IN SPITE OF christianity, not because of it... and christianity still has quite a ways to go before it catches up with enlightened secular morality.

I was brought up Catholic until 22 years old and then saw the truth and became an ANTI-THEIST stronger than a mere "atheist". Then at the age of 32, a friend gave me a magic mushroom from a cow pasture. I ate half of it and felt very slightly nauseous. Then for the next 6 or 7 hours, I experienced an ecstatic growing sensitivity and insight and could understand the workings of everything around me (I am an engineer). This culminated with about an hour of selflessness in which I not only could understand the universe, but felt I WAS THE UNIVERSE. Later I read this was reaching "UNITY" strangly enough, it made me agnostic again--not in the sense that there is a god to pray to etc. but that there MAY be a superior intelligence. It is irrelevant anyway, for it pays no attention to our prayers nor cares what we do. Keep up the good work, Sam.

Pam

E.O. Wilson and most atheist would disagree with you about free will.

Is it magical to believe that something outside of space and time created the Big Bang and subsequently, the universe? I do not see anything magical about this. I tend to see a cause and effect relationship.

James

James,
Of course free will exists - most atheists were born of believing parents. Your premise would only be true if belief was genetic or indoctrination by parents worked perfectly. Neither is the case.

Ideas change as knowledge is spread. I think that if we manage to keep from killing ourselves in the meantime, a time will come when all humans are atheist. I have no illusions about it happening in my lifetime, or anytime soon. Nevertheless, we've thrown off the yoke of a lot of past superstition and magical thinking, and I don't believe the bulwark of religion is impregnable.

James, you are completely negating your own original point with this new talk of "free will"! You are arguing against yourself!

If my genes completely determined my belief, then how could I be a believer at one time and not a believer at another?

WM

That depends on if free will exist. I would assume you are a determinist or believe that free will does not exist. If free will does not exist, even though you thought you made the decision to be a non-believer, you didn't. Your genes determined your belief.

James

Hi Sam- thanks for another great column. Where in the world do you get the time to do all this writing and still study? Anyway- two points. I had an experience similar to yours as a response to an overwhelming fear generated by a series of medical tests (which all turned out to be nothing). I sat in a field and just cried and let it all out and then suddenly felt like my "self" had spread out in all directions and I was a part of everything in the universe. I felt a peace, calm and a sense of love that I have not felt since and can't seem to duplicate. I was aware that I was a part of everything and that it was all good and as it should be. Now, did I have that experience because it was what my panic caused my brain to produce? I did not consider it a spiritual experience. I came across a book about a year later by former astronaut Edgar Mitchell where he described a very similar experience in space, when he was feeling calm (The Way of the Explorer") His response was scientific- to try to duplicate that experience in a setting where it could be studied. This effort led to the founding of the Institute of Noetic Sciences. I still think the experience is a brain thing. The second thing I want to mention is the place where your experience happened has very little chance of being the mount where a man named Jesus spoke, because it is more than likely that there never was such a man. I've been reading "The Christ Conspiracy" by Acharya S (www. truthbeknown.com) and it makes a very strong argument that all the current faiths are amalgamations of old pagan beliefs and that Jesus is a cobbled together mixture of several old gods with lots of astrology mixed in. Very interesting. Perhaps we all need to work on making this type of info more available to religious people. It would certainly help to make them stop and think. Then maybe they would be too busy trying to sort it all out to bother with messing up the world for everyone else.

James and WM,
Not to worry, the world population will probably drop drastically by the end of this century, perhaps in the next 50 years. Dwindling energy resources, emergent diseases, climactic change and regional wars over oil, food, land and yes, religion will cut the numbers down by the billions, mostly in third world countries, where the vast reservoir of the religious reside. We won't need any Four Horsemen, it will be just a correction by nature. Happens all the time. Our overgrown civilization gets more and more fragile every year. One big puff from Pinatubo or any of a dozen other volcanoes in Indonesia and a "year without summer" will starve whole regions, especially in Europe and North America. Happened several times before. In the meantime with our clever heads, full stomachs and empty hearts we can bicker over these terribly important things about god.

Can't stay. Gotta go to work encouraging little kids to become scientists. Bye.

You are right. We atheist do not reproduce as much. We do not see purpose as religious people see purpose. We do see beauty, though. The world is much to cruel to bring a child into.

Peace and love

Thomas

James, do you have good evidence that atheism is an inevitable result of particular genetic composition? If that is not the case, then it's possible for the children of believers to be non-believers, and your argument is flawed.

I was once a believer, now I am not. I didn't go through "natural selection" in the process of changing my own beliefs.

If natural selection and random mutation have produced people with atheistic beliefs and they reproduce at a much lower rate, while people of religious faith reproduce much more, how will atheism continue?

James, I don't doubt that the percentages of people belonging to various religions in a particular location change over time due to a multitude of factors, one of which is particular religions' tendencies to produce more prolific breeders. What I do dispute is your assertion that "atheism will die out based on survival of the fittest" (see above reasons).

Soja, your recipe for finding the Christian god could be used to find any god. People can convince themselves of pretty much anything if they try hard enough and their need is great enough.

If I was going to try to find a particular God(s), first I think I would have to pick the right God(s) to try to find. I suppose I could research the thousands of Gods that we know about today, and put them in some kind of prioritized list, with the Gods that I find most likely/most inoffensive at the top of the list and the Gods that I find least likely/most offensive at the bottom. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of Gods who have been lost due to the passage of time, so my list wouldn’t be very complete, but it would be a start.

Then I could follow your recipe for finding God starting with the God at the top of list. When it became obvious that this God wasn’t answering, I could move on to the next. And on and on and on until maybe I’d be really luck and find the right one … or I managed to delude myself that one of them actually answered. And if I was deluding myself, then it would have been better that I never started this exercise in the first place.

All in all, to me it seems that this would be a monumental waste of the precious and wonderful time that I have on this planet. And if there is a God, it would chide me severely for wasting the time it gave me.

WM

What do you think Europe will look like in 100 years? We tend to only view faith through western eyes. Muslims do not like secularization. Believe it or not, they like the belief in God and do not see it incompatible with science. Look also at Russia. They are one of the most atheistic societies in the world and it is reported that they are losing nearly 700,000 people a year in their popultion.

James

James, I see many problems with your reasoning that atheism will die out per the “survival of the fittest.” Here are a couple of them:
- As long as religious “breeders” have children who may not have the beliefs of their parents, there will be atheists. The number of atheists (or people who feel free to admit that they are atheists) will depend on the freedom of thought allowed for by the various societies in which they live.
- I see no good reason to assume that there the number of children atheists have vs. the number of children religious people have will remain at current levels. As we run out of room for more people on this planet, the religious will of necessity be forced to have fewer children – religious teachings will probably change due to conditions on the ground. If conditions become more attractive for having children, atheists may have more of them.

This is should of been posted on the atheism and vogue section, but I do think it is relevant here.

In an ironic way, atheism will die out based on survival of the fittest. First and foremost, atheist/humanist/secularist tend not to reproduce. Secularization has been on the decline in Europe for a few years now. Eric Kaufman, a senior lecturer in politics at Birkbeck, recently wrote in Prospect (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7913), that “next to age and marital status, a woman's religiosity was the strongest predictor of her number of offspring.” Kaufman found in religious a 15-20 percent fertility lead over the non-religious. According to another study done by Brian C. O'Neill, a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, “"If the current fertility rate of around 1.5 births per woman persists until 2020, negative momentum will result in 88 million fewer people in 2100, if one assumes constant mortality and no net migration," the researchers say. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546441.shtml). Interesting, Muslims birth rate are not declining. In Europe, Muslims are 3 times as likely to have children. Expect Europe to become more religious in the future, with a more Islamic world view. In the future, “Eurabia” may replace the EU. The same thing in secular Europe will also happen here. A recent study showed how people in the Northeast, Calif, Washington, and Oregon are more likely to have a pet than a baby whereas people in more conservative place are much more likely to have a child rather than a pet. Kaufman quotes Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University who recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a 'fertility gap' of 41 per cent. Given that about 80 percent of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections." Secondly, unlike Europe, which has Islam to contend with, Americans have Hispanics migrating to the US who are deeply devoted Catholics. This wills only strength Christianity in the politics and social arena.

James

"God is not a female, God is not an it, God is a He."

OK, now we're into the deep end of weird.
He has a penis and testicles? For what?
He has a ribcage - to protect a heart and lungs that he uses for what? A nose to breathe what? Bones to support his body against what gravity?

Our bodies are no more nor less than what we need to survive on *this* planet. We eveolved precisely to live here - that's why we require space suits to walk on the moon.

It's just this sort of ridiculous insanity that turns the rational off from religion.

Christians suck

Soja said:
"...just a suggestion for you to try out: Before you start reading the Bible, relax and focus your mind's eye inward. Repeat your intention to have Jesus come into your life and make His presence felt. Make an act of faith "Jesus, I believe, help thou my unbelief," and let go of all ideas and concepts about how your prayer should be answered. Read Psalm 139 and the Gospel of John chapters 14-17, reflecting on the meaning meditatively. Go into a period of silence after that. Let the words sink in. Listen in silence. Do the same twice a day if possible, morning and evening. Don't expect anything dramatic to happen. Wait in trust and faithful silence. Listen in the stillness and silence of your heart."

HA! Nice recipe for brainwashing. That's what theisms are all about after all. Or, one could just do like the Cowardly Lion in Wizard of Oz (another fiction) and repeat over-and-over:

"I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks. I do! I do! I do! I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks. I do! I do! I do! I do!"

And those books you mentioned are complete nonsense in pschyobabble. What have YOU ever read outside your delusional reinforcing material? How about the book by long-time evangelical minister and missionary turned atheist, Dan Barker (FFRF.org): "Losing Faith in Faith"? Would do you a lot of good -- mentally.

It's apparent that while you only want to poison other people with your nonsense, you have absolutely no desire in even attempting to understand anything or anyone outside your weak and delusional fantasy world.

Most especially what it is to declare oneself atheist:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis03.htm

Ah, Mark Easton, yes, you answered me -- with great certainty; therefore,I have no more questions on that score.

So the deal was, then, that if you answered me, I would answer one of your questions. I scrolled back but couldn't find them. But from other posts I deduced that the first question was: Why do I exist.

I exist because I was born. And I will live until I die. In the meantime, it is up to me to place meaning on my life.

Kate

To get back to Sam's post, I liked it a lot. I greatly appreciate his sincerity, thoughtfulness, and evident integrity. I have only one comment for Sam. With all due respect for your explanation of your meditative experiences, don't be too eager to dismiss what people of the past have said about these things. To do so (as so many do without even the faintest understanding of the past), is to cast out a huge part of our cultural heritage, and an important record of human insight. Though they seldom say so directly, "modernists" often treat the dead as if they were deluded ignoramuses, or even barbarians. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have gained much knowledge in the past 200 years, but we have lost many important things too - and to ask for a list of those things is to prove the point!

In understanding the past, academic study alone is not enough. If we study people from the past as if they were bugs under the microscope, we miss the point time and time again. True insight is partly dependent on empathy. By empathy I mean listening with such attention that the records of the past become the voices of real people. Without that, we don't hear any trace of what they were actually saying - we hear what we want to hear. To do this we have to set aside our own intellectual models and preconceptions, a least for a moment or two.

To get back to Sam's post, I liked it a lot. I greatly appreciate his sincerity, thoughtfulness, and evident integrity. I have only one comment for Sam. With all due respect for your explanation of your meditative experiences, don't be too eager to dismiss what people of the past have said about these things. To do so (as so many do without even the faintest understanding of the past), is to cast out a huge part of our cultural heritage, and an important record of human insight. Though they seldom say so directly, "modernists" often treat the dead as if they were deluded ignoramuses, or even barbarians. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have gained much knowledge in the past 200 years, but we have lost many important things too - and to ask for a list of those things is to prove the point!

In understanding the past, academic study alone is not enough. If we study people from the past as if they were bugs under the microscope, we miss the point time and time again. True insight is partly dependent on empathy. By empathy I mean listening with such attention that the records of the past become the voices of real people. Without that, we don't hear any trace of what they were actually saying - we hear what we want to hear. To do this we have to set aside our own intellectual models and preconceptions, a least for a moment or two.

Dear Katealene:

Without instruction, I would know nothing of God. Without God revealing Himself to us, we would know nothing of Him.

He has revealed Himself to us, through Jesus. The Scriptures declare that Jesus is "The image of the Invisible God". Since Jesus had a specific gender, and taught us to refer to God as "Abba, Father", I will not refer to Him in a genderless form. God is not a female, God is not an it, God is a He.

Dear Soja,

Thanks for your reply.

1. I am not uncomfortable with the way you speak of your God. BTW, I put God in quotes because I feel that there are so many Gods being discussed on this forum that I wanted to specify that I was focusing on your "God." But I can drop the quotes now.

Soja, my question comes out of simple curiousity. And as you were posting on this forum I felt free to engage you in discussion.

As a woman, I'm curious why God isn't spoken of as She. Different associations would rise up with the feminine address. What do you think?

But deeper, when you think about it, could one speak of a "force," or a "mystery," or an "energy."

For me, making a human out of such a creative, mysterious force reduces it -- greatly.

Doesn't negate the concept, mind you, but weakens it. What do you think?

2. The above is in no way a prescription of what you should do. Again, in this open forum in which you participate, I believe I have the green light to query you. Are you up for that?

Thank you for your encouragment re my writing. One of the vignettes tells of my first year out of the convent, and being the classic misfit, especially in the public school I was teaching in. Didn't know the popular songs, or television programs, hadn't seen a film in 12 yrs except the 10 Commandments.

In the faculty room, I'd pick up magazines that had ads saying: Jobs! Jobs! Booming Australia Wants You! And I thought--that's for me. I needed annonymity, to be 16 yrs old again, to grow up, but most of all to wipe the slate clean of all my beliefs (to the extent I could) and start from the ground up using my common sense and my experiences and my own thinking.

I lived in Neutral Bay for a year, taking the ferry over everyday to Syndey where I worked. I saw the great seashells--or were they sails?--of your opera house rise up out of the sea.

The Aussies put me back together with a warmth and kindness and humor that I remember to this day.

So, mate, let me hear from you again.

Kate

Ron,

I am an atheist. I have been one for much of my life. I have lost loved ones to death at an early age. I had questioned gods existence long before the deaths. It is not what turned me away from religion. Truthfully, Ron, I would have and did much more appreciate an honest answer to my question of why did this happen with an *I don't know*. Then with the old *Gods Plan* standby. I know at the time, no words could console me. Only time can soften the loss.

I have written this next line about 5 times now and turn around and deleted it. I just can't get this thought out of my head and I am not sure why I feel the need to say this. But I am going to.

If your loss has been recent, I am not so sure this is a good time to completely pull away from your faith.

I suppose I say this because when our minds are cloudy from grief, it is not the right time to make any kind of major decisions. I think many people question their faith when faced with very difficult situations. I only advocate a major transition with a clear thought process.

Take care.

Soja wrote: "I'll get around to replying to your post over the weekend, even if I have no answer to your questions at all."

Ah. The reframe of a true Christian. “I have no answers (at least you admit it), but I will comment nonetheless”. Brilliant…..and narcissist beyond belief (pun intended).

Did you actually read Sam’s article above? If you did, your reading comprehension skills could use some improvement, as it appears you missed the major thrust.

Please consider that any communion that you believe is taking place between you and your God is happening entirely within the confines of your skull. This is what Sam is talking about. This is what it means to be an atheist. Meditative contemplation and the resulting spiritual insights are available to anyone with a quiet room, some basic breathing techniques, and the desire. No transcendent supernatural being is required.

You worship a god who isn’t there.

To JANINE CHASE-RUSSELL:

Thanks for your comments. Will give it a thought and post an addendum to the post in question soon.

As to your remark: "Soja, pa-lease re-define your god from one that depends on wrath and jealousy and smiting to one of love and charity." My response is: ???

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

What happened to sharing our experiences related to selfless consciousness without faith? With all due respect Soja, your testimony has nothing to do with searching for the meaning of "spiritual" or transcen"dental" experiences that occur without the crutch of faith. (I call faith a crutch because it relies on hope without evidence and evidence of things not seen or heard by ALL of the human race is spurious at best.)
I think Sam's point was, if anyone recalls, that individuals can have and do have "spiritual" or "mystical" experiences that can be interpreted without any religious underpinnings. These altered states of consciousness in which an individual can feel at one with the universe or all life on earth appears to be common among our species, the differences lie in the interpretation of those experiences and the question of what causes them and how and why they occur is what is at issue here...or maybe I'm hazy and should just tottle off to bed.

To all out there arguing the definition for the concept of god I say:
"name a god we all agree"-- Michael Stipe
ONE LOVE, J.
p.s. Soja, pa-lease re-define your god from one that depends on wrath and jealousy and smiting to one of love and charity.

Timmy,

Thanks for the reply to "Let's Define God".

I'm new to this conversation, and resonate with your mention of "frustratingly muddled" conversation.

My painful journey from 'Christian' to Athiest produced so many powerful truth tools over the years, with a path of increased awareness, proofs, certainty, acceptance, and closure. Yet so much of people's time here talking in opposition, and disagreements with other people's hopes and causes can only result in our waisting valuable time, causing stronger polarization, and stalemates - not my preferred way to spend my life.

Universal truth does exist, and there are ways to define, build, and achieve it. However, words and text alone are very very rarely transformational, and are powerless on solidified scared and needy minds in denial, or those that do not agree on or understand a concept, listen, truly consider, think, make distinctions, cognite, and 'choose' higher purposes/causes that would change their assumptions (a.k.a. unexamined beliefs). Hell, there was some guy ranting on this website a few days ago that "observing" is a bad thing - that guy's a goner :-)

It's absolutley a lost cause when the other person is a radicalized wacko (arguing with a machine is insanity); definitions are impossible, and reason is useless with a zombie (zombie is to be taken seriously, I did not intended that as name-calling).

Has the athiest community collectively defined the problem(s), agreed on realistic objectives we all hope for, and devised a workable strategy to unlock changes and make the goals real ? Or is all of this god/no-god game just that, a solutionless life-consuming game ?

As long as the definitions of all our core words in play in the vast sea of conversations and 'noise' are ambiguous, it is entirely hopeless to expect words to help bring a more sane and stable back-to-basics life-appreciating future-oriented planet.

Truth, Hope, and Love,
Ron

Timmy, what about the definition:

"An atheist is a person who does not ask if god exists or not."

Gerry

Timmy wrote:

Ron,

God: The one true God as defined by the Abrahamic faiths.
God: Everything, everywhere. (from Hinduism)
God: The general idea of an all powerful spiritual overseer.
God: A supernatural being. e.g. Thor, Zeus
God: The creator of the universe.
God: That moral voice in my head.
God: Eric Clapton
God: You know... God
God: All of the positive energy in the universe flowing through our bodies.
God: George Burns

Are you saying that the word "God" in this conversation we are having is ambiguous?

Hmmmmm. Gee I think you're on to something here.

You hit the nail on the head. This conversation is, and will continue to be frustratingly muddled until there is a better definition for atheist, than:
"One who believes that God does not exist."

We need to change this definition.

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

I agree 100%

Robin,

Thank-you (about the loss of our 17-year-old daughter).

I'm not sure what your beliefs are, but as strong as my faith was when I was younger (the need for belongingness usually overrules free-thinking and awareness), it was a long painful battle on the road to reality. Losing our oldest daughter resulted in a complete failure of faith. And if I ask Christians about it, they are either silent, or say "I have no answers". What the hell is faith when it cannot even produce hope or certainty for the most important issues of our existence: life, death, purpose, and understanding.

And I heard many people thru the years say "God's plan". If allowing or causing an honest life-loving teenage girl to die before she gets to fully live her life is any part of god's plan, or destroying the dreams my 2 other daughters made with their sister, then count me out.

But then again, now knowing that "god" is, and always was, simply a word, the whole notion of god's plan becomes insanely absurd and as empty as the point when the malignant god-concept was assumed into our species' existence.

Truth, Hope, and Love,
Ron

To TIMMY:

Timmy thank you for your post of 9 January 2007 3:05 AM and the words of appreciation.

I will reply to it in detail in a couple of days, when I have a little more time to reflect. The nature of your question is not one to which I could write a spontaneous and quick response.

I can say straight off however that I feel powerless to give you the faith you seek. I did not have to struggle to have faith, so I can't give advice on how to find it. The three books I mentioned in my post - autobiographies of Gandhi, C S Lewis and Dom Bede Griffiths, is worth a read in this context because both C S Lewis and Bede Griffiths found their way to Christianity after being atheists.

The only word of encouragement I can give you from reading the Bible is that it promises that all who search for God will find Him. The only prerequiste is that one must believe that He exists and He is the rewarder of all who search for Him. That must sound like a Catch-22 to you. If you have asked Jesus into your heart and life, I'm sure He has honoured your request and has come. The question however is what proof of his presence are you looking for exactly?

Here, just a suggestion for you to try out: Before you start reading the Bible, relax and focus your mind's eye inward. Repeat your intention to have Jesus come into your life and make His presence felt. Make an act of faith "Jesus, I believe, help thou my unbelief," and let go of all ideas and concepts about how your prayer should be answered. Read Psalm 139 and the Gospel of John chapters 14-17, reflecting on the meaning meditatively. Go into a period of silence after that. Let the words sink in. Listen in silence. Do the same twice a day if possible, morning and evening. Don't expect anything dramatic to happen. Wait in trust and faithful silence. Listen in the stillness and silence of your heart.

Just a suggestion. I'll get around to replying to your post over the weekend, even if I have no answer to your questions at all.

Remember that everyone who seeks God will find Him.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

I am a furious atheist. I „believe“ in Nature. Now, don’t put me in the “Pantheist” drawer. Nature is immeasurably wonderful, great, miraculous, it can give the most transcendental spiritual feelings, it gives me my senses to perceive it, to enjoy myself as a thinking individual, as an individual who can communicate, who can perceive and create art (I am an artist), it gives curiosity, love, admiration. Thinking and learning can be the greatest pleasures. I am happy and almost proud to have a brain to think and feel, to materialize, realize this beautiful, strange, surprising, bewildering Nature. Nature is life, process, Nature is evolution – in short, Nature has for me the greatest spiritual potential imaginable.

Then there are stories. There are many stories, old, ones, new ones, good ones, bad ones. The better ones have a manyfold meaning disguised in symbolic pictures. They range from the Odyssey, the Baghavatgita, Plato’s philosophy, mystical efforts to explain the unexplainable myth of life, legends, fables, beautiful fairy tales from cultures all around the world. The symbolic language and pictures stir my imagination, initiate my thinking and develop me as an autonomous and therefore happy personality. The art, music, architectural masterworks elate my senses.

The value of these stories does not lie in their factual report of history, in their “truth”, but in their meaning. Some are based on some historical events, some are pure inventions, and the older they are, the more difficult it is to find out the difference, which basically is not important, as long as their symbolic, and also their aesthetic and poetic value are regarded and enjoyed as such.

All of a sudden, some people come along maintaining that one particular story is not meant symbolically (to make me reflect on it), but that it must be taken literally, that the wrapping is the content. They come along and want to force me, with the most nonsensical arguments, to abandon my broad outlook on the world, reduce it to a twisted, limping, pathological behaviour. They threaten me that if I don’t give up the inspiring idea of symbolism and instead “convert” to the narrow back alleys of their desperate, stupid literalism, they would kill me. I would go to “hell”, another silly feature they invented in their little story. Anyway, lethal hatred is poured on me in case I don’t give up my world view and reduce it, minimize it to theirs.

We have persons on some of these threads who are good examples of this sort of menace. There is one person named Canyon, who prides himself of teaching his little stories to everybody, with an unbearable condescending arrogance. He wrote in one of the threads, that atheism must be killed. One can kill atheism only by killing atheists. Thank you, Mr. Canyon, I got the message: You are determined to kill me. I take this as the final insult and threat of murder, and I take it quite personal. I would much rather go to your imaginary hell than to be caught in your fangs, to be reduced to a little superstitious, impotent mind from a formerly rewarding, openminded, curious, researching outlook on Nature, which has produced my life.

It is this addling infantilism that stands for the fact that education has such a small value in the bigotry of Amercan politics. It is this infantilism that has led to the Iraq war, with God “talking” to Bush, a similar procedure that is suggested in God talking to Abraham to kill his son. How do we have to picture such a "talk"? It takes place in the warped brain (one is inclined to talk of “split brain”) of such a person.

The propaganda machinery of this ilk is impressive: They want to convince me that I cannot feel, love, communicate, have compassion, in short, lead a decent and full life without this mental reductionism. They want to convince me that black is white. And really, in the Middle Ages (they are not over!) monks had to pray “credo quia absurdum”, “I believe, because it is absurd”.

This is not compatible with my sense of human dignity.

Gerry

Ron,

God: The one true God as defined by the Abrahamic faiths.
God: Everything, everywhere. (from Hinduism)
God: The general idea of an all powerful spiritual overseer.
God: A supernatural being. e.g. Thor, Zeus
God: The creator of the universe.
God: That moral voice in my head.
God: Eric Clapton
God: You know... God
God: All of the positive energy in the universe flowing through our bodies.
God: George Burns

Are you saying that the word "God" in this conversation we are having is ambiguous?

Hmmmmm. Gee I think you're on to something here.

You hit the nail on the head. This conversation is, and will continue to be frustratingly muddled until there is a better definition for atheist, than:
"One who believes that God does not exist."

We need to change this definition.

Tim wrote:
"Sorry Pam, but I am not buying much of what you are saying. I was raised on a farm and my father is a wildlife biologist. I am also familiar with Darwins theory on the Peacock's tail and etc."

Tim, I really don't care whether you buy it or not. You'll find that it's pretty well accepted among animal behaviorists. What did you raise on that farm? Corn? I've been breeding animals for 30 years and I know whereof I speak.

Tim said: "You are loosely making statements regarding rape.
I can find you numerous articles talking about forceful copulation in animals."

No doubt. If you read my post again, you'll find that I didn't say that it doesn't *ever* happen; I said that it's relatively rare.

Tim said (quite inexplicably): "I am still waiting though for an answer regarding objective morals"

Short memory, Tim. I answered in the affirmative in the first post; however, I'd like to amend that. I took that as objective vs. *subjective*, therefore I explained the evolutionary nature of rules for each social species. Now that you've clarified that you meant "absolute", my answer is an emphatic NO.

What did you expect when you asked atheists these questions about things that can only be religion based?

Let me ask you the same question that I asked Mark Eaton (which he ignored): If you had been raised by wolves and had never been told about God, or seen a Bible, would you know God existed? How?

How about you take your God, AND your "God", and shove both of them up where the sun don't shine.
Then go get a check-up, from the neck, up. Because many of you imaginary sky-daddy wackos are freaking nuts and need to be institutionalized!

Can someone please define what is meant by "God", so I too can play the god-game ?

Thanks in advance,
Ron

Faith in God is faith in yourself.
Faith in your inner moral voice. The one we all have, that points out the right moral path, and yet leaves us the free will not to choose it.
That thing inside us that sends shivers up our spine when we hear expressions of love, compassion, peace and brotherhood.
Only if this is God can we have faith in God.

All other faith, is faith in people.
Faith, in the words of people.
People who had something to gain.
And now have very much to lose.

On 9 January 2007 10:27 AM, Kate wrote:
“Soja! Greetings. Thanks for your post. Would you be willing to engage in an experiment with me? As I said in an earlier post, I am examining the language I use to describe my experiences of being in this world. ... It's tough ... but, oh, so revealing as most self-examination is.

"Would you please rewrite the following sentence without personifying your God, whom I assume is not a human being? In other words, take out the three masculine attributions and replace them with more "correct" ones. Take your time ... and feel this.

"God would not be God if HE did not make HIS spirit available to all the human beings HE created."

On 9 January 2007 1:24 PM, Kate wrote:

“Ah, Mark Eaton.

Would you, too, along with Soja, experiment with speaking of your "God" w/out personifying it. In other words, drop from your word choice anything that would indicate that your "God" is a human being - you know, dressed in a suit or maybe casually in jeans,(or a skirt?) who is "sad" or "rejoices," etc. etc.

Try it out. “

SJT's response:

Kate, thanks for your post.

First of all I need to clarify that I wrote about my God, not my “God”, in a language I feel perfectly comfortable with.

I agree that most self-examination is tough… but, oh, so revealing. So you might like to devise a little experiment for yourself to find out: 1. Why my way of speaking about my God, not my “God”, bothers you, and 2. On what basis you are giving me and Mark Eaton instructions on how we should describe our God, not our “God.” The results of your self-experiment might make a valuable contribution to your memoirs.

I wish you success in examining the language you use to describe your experience of being in this world, and in completing your memoirs as a great piece of writing that offers new insights into human nature.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

We function by the grace of our fallible minds.
What is God?
God is the answer to our fallible minds.
Dogma is perverse.

WM - you're welcome! This discussion has been fascinating.

Tim -

You say, " We all would truly like to know if God exists...That's why people like you and myself are on these forums. We struggle with the God question..."

Not in my case - I'm taking advantage of this unique opportunity to see how other people think about these issues - and hoping that somewhere in these conversations there is a path to a brighter future. Sounds hokey, maybe, but I'm an optimist.

Thanks Duckphup for your perspective...I too have become satisfied with the " I don't know" solution or answer to said experience...but I really like your "quantum interconnectedness" hypothesis (can I call it that?), it fits with my thinking on it.
All this discussion reminds me of the zen kaon: "Do I exist because I'm alive or am I alive because I exist?"--Banana Yosshimoto. Perhaps in the space-time continuum we all exist and don't exist (at least in solid form) at the same time...
spooky action at a distance for sure...Ever read "Schrodinger's Kittens" by John Gribbin?
Oh, and I thouroughly enjoyed and couldn't have said it better myself, your dissertation on morals/ethics...really I couldn't have articulated it at all! but I agree with thee.
J.

Searching for God

Thanks Tim, for a very gracious comment (more gracious than I deserve I am sure).

I myself taught a course this fall called "Searching for God in Classical Music," examining how great composers have grappled with the question of God and death and meaning in life. Believe me, for those great artists, the search was always a struggle.

Spiritual and smart people like you always get involved at some point in their lives with that struggle for meaning, and for understanding if there is a God that plays a role.

as this post shows, there are many answers people find in that quest. Some very good and humane people find God, some very good and humane people don't. But the question is the same.

thanks again for your forebearance.

James

James

Thank you. I have enjoyed the dialogue tonight. Here is something to chew on tonight and I believe it is true (oops, did I say that). I asked a friend of mine in the seminary why do certain preachers tend to focus on certain subjects (ie., lust or tithing). He said that the reason was that these are the subjects that they struggle with the most. I have talked to other believers and non-believers about why we discusses faith and God so much and I came up with the same conclusion. We all would truly like to know if God exists, but none of us do. That is why people like your and myself are on these forums. We struggle with the God question along our journey in life.

God bless you

Tim

Yo, Tim,

Try a google search for absolute morality. Look it up in wikipedia.

You'll get your answer.

Kate

E. Favorite: Your experiences sound similar to mine in the sense of there being no “religious or anti-religious or atheist feelings attached” – thank you for sharing them!

When I described “a rational refusal to attach my spiritual experiences to one higher power or another without evidence,” I was describing how I thought about the experiences after they happened. I haven’t seen any evidence that my experiences had anything do with a particular deity. I had no visions of Jesus or anything of the sort during these experiences, which would have constituted “some” type of evidence (though it seems to me that even if I did have visions of Jesus, it would have been more likely due to my cultural upbringing than to any universal truth). I have seen no good non-subjective evidence for any particular personalized higher power. So I don’t in any way associate the experiences with any particular higher power.

I, too, am glad that I had them!

tim

how bout No? does NO work for you?

einstein thought that the speed of light was an absolute. God is light, isn't he? so maybe there is your answer.

Your conception of evil, as Duckie has already shown, is so meaningless that even (especially) you don't even understand it.

Some candidates for absolute truth?
Don't kill? God told us to kill in the old testament, right after he gave the 10 commandments?
(the canaanites, in what seems like a genocide)

God is Good? See above reference: God is genocidal.

do you have any other candidates for mindless objective truth to be crucified upon this post?

The concept of absolute morals assumes that morality exists separate from the human experience. That simply cannot be. Humans are the only beings (that we know of) that have the capacity to understand the concept of morality. All morals are creations of humans, and humans being quite different, morals cannot be absolute.

OTOH, codified law could be considered a form of 'objective' morals. That is 'we' decide vs the subjective 'I' decide.

James: Whose version of the absolute?
Yours? "God" help us if the world, or even two or three of us, have to take moral guidance from you.

James, at least we agree on that.

Here is the last way I can pose this question. In this vast universe, is there an absolute truth that determines good and evil, right and wrong or is good and evil, right and wrong subjective? I am not talking about my truth, your truth, GWB truth, Richard Dawkins truth, Bill Gates truth, PZ Myers truth, etc?

Tim

i hate to give up on a human being Tim,
but i think you should throw in the towel
at least on this post.

Nice that you have read Wilson et al.

But you show no signs of being able to understand the complexities of the issues you raise.

Absolute vs non-absolute?
Whose version of the absolute?
Yours?
"God" help us if the world, or even two or three of us, have to take moral guidance from you.

Go back and read 30 more books and open your mind, and get a good tutor, and then come back.

love you.

James

DZ, Yes. Absolute vs non-absolute. I must be doing a horrible job of explaining myself b/c I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. Duckphup at least said it is true that absolute morals do not exist even though that is a self defeating statement. James and Pam keep talking about genetics determing morals or the George Bush's morals.

I am about to throw in the towel.

Tim

Thank you Duckphup. At least I got an honest answer. Also, I have read E.O Wilson about altruism and everything else that you are saying. I do not care about your views on humanity, religion or anything else that you stated. That is besides the point. Based on your reply I would take it that you believe it is strictly society that determines what is right or wrong based on democracy, since there are not objective morals, just the illusion. Now going back to Hitler, the Germans thought that he was right (I know you do not believe in right or wrong, but play along with me) based on their society. You agree that it is just our opinion that he was morally wrong in committing genocide.

James, I still don't think you have grasped the point of my question.

Tim

When I read your posts, it's difficult for me to grasp what you actually mean by 'objective' morals. Objective vs. subjective morality raises one set of thoughts, but absolute vs non-absolute morality seems to be what you're driving at, but that raises a completely different set of thoughts.

Is absolute vs non-absolute what you really mean?

WM,

You say:

“I think that such people don’t describe those experiences in terms of a higher power because they have insufficient evidence that these experiences have anything to do with a personalized higher power…a rational refusal to attach my spiritual experiences to one higher power or another without evidence.”

Interesting theory, but doesn’t apply in my case. I didn’t “decide” how to characterize my experiences, so did not make any “rational refusal.” I just felt them. They happened. Felt really really good. No religious or anti-religious or atheist feelings attached – just that great “at one with the universe” feeling, which at the time, I did not know was so ubiquitous.

I did think about them afterwards, and again now, reading through these threads. There were three of them, all at “holy” sites – one pagan (Avebury), one Christian (Assisi) and one both (Rome).

I consider that I may have been suggestible, but that explanation doesn’t feel right. I didn’t know anything about Avebury and just made an unplanned stop there, because the group I was with had the time on the way to somewhere else. Assisi was more intentional – a lovely Umbrian hill town. But again, I didn’t know much about St. Francis and didn’t go there to commune with his spirit. I arrived late at night planning to go right to bed, but then felt drawn outdoors (it was a pleasant evening) and then to the monastery where that wondrous feeling of oneness hit. Rome, I had been to before without any mystical experiences, so who knows?

To me it seems more likely that those places were originally selected by the ancients because they are in some way holy. In Avebury and Assisi I actually heard a chord and felt the earth trembling. (Not in Rome -- too noisy!)

But really, I don’t know. It would be interesting to have an explanation for this type of phenomenon, but more than anything, I’m just glad to have experienced it.

Sam,
Quoting you: ...I am often asked what will replace organized religion. The answer is: many things and nothing.

We must devise an alternative - to address purpose in life, pursuit of happiness, dealing with loss, right action, etc., all without appeal to an unprovable supreme being.

Create an on-line methodolgy to cobble together a draft of an alternative. Perhaps it would be published without title or author.

Ed

Sorry Pam, but I am not buying much of what you are saying. I was raised on a farm and my father is a wildlife biologist. I am also familiar with Darwins theory on the Peacock's tail and etc.

You are loosely making statements regarding rape.
I can find you numerous articles talking about forceful copulation in animals. But that is not the point.

I am still waiting though for an answer regarding objective morals

Janine asked: "My dream had occurred three days after her actual death...so my question to you Duckphup, is, what do you think it is that can causes this type of precognitive experience?"

The simple answer is "I don't know."

To me, it is the experience that matters... not our interpretation of it. We simply do not know enough and are not equipped, at this point in our journey, to interpret these kinds of experiences properly.

Your experience was precongitive... my experience was synchronous. My experience tells me that we are connected in way that transcends the senses and distance. Your experience contains an additional element which seems to transcend time.

Both your experience and mine add to my sense of awe and wonder at the complexity of the universe, and anticipation of the new discoveries and understandings that lie ahead of us. Unfortunately, we are probably hundreds of years away from being able to explain such happenings... if ever. The only thing that we presently know of that might even suggest a mechanism for such happenings is 'quantum interconnectedness', although it is a huge stretch to think that that can manifest itself or have an effect in the macrocosm. Of course, we might come to learn that 'mind', or 'consciousness' is a quantum phenomenon. Who knows?

For me, for now, "I don't know" is enough... well, that plus the 'wow' factor.

I feel sorry for people who would explain this kind of thing as "God did it."...

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin

"Thou shalt not kill" yet what is the God prescribed penalty for breaking any of the "Ten commandments" or most of the other hundreds of "moral" laws in the bible, DEATH! Changing "kill" to "murder" does not help the contradiction, nor does saying that it only meant not to kill other Jews as no sooner had Moses came down off the mountain with the commandments, then he ordered the death of 3000 Jews for making the golden cow.......................

Tim asks:
"So if our genes would change, someday our morals may be different. Someday murdering an innocent person may be moral or ethical."

No, Tim, that's not how it works. You're putting the cart before the horse. People might be born (are, in fact) with a poor set of internal social codes. They are social misfits, and usually are taken out of the breeding equation before they can leave many descendants (you don't sire many offspring when you're in jail, or after you're lynched (harking to an earlier time).

Only if murdering an innocent person became a successful strategy for increasing the reproduction of the murderer - *over and above that of the non-murderers* - would natural selection begin to increase the number of people with that genetic propensity.

Difficult to feature that happening in a social animal.

Tim
it seems that you do not understand the short-sightedness and contradictions of your yes or no/objective morals question.

Who is going to lay down the objective morals?
God in the old testament?
thou shalt not kill?" what is george bush doing in our Iraq war? we haven't KILLED anyone have we?

The Pope?
What if the Pope lays out the objective morals (no abortion and contraception)
and a Hindu disagrees with him?
Off with his head?

you are in a fantasy land. not this pluralistic world. are the OBJECTIVE morals the ones you believe? What if Mother Theresa or Gandhi or Martin Luther King or Odetta has a different opinion?
are your objective morals the right objective morals.

Use your head. LOOK at the world the way it actually is.

Your question is mindless. It shows a distinct lack of meaningful intelligence.

You can not possibly understand Duckie. Your mind does not have the subtlety, imagination, flexibility, and sensitivity to other human beings.

Ryan 2

Have hope and remember, when all else seemingly fails, Max Planck's dictum: Science does progress funeral by funeral ...

Kate

Tim: Of COURSE there is no such thing as 'objective' morality. Morality is not a feature of the universe... it is an evolved property of humanity.

Whenever I see a question like yours, I am appalled to be reminded that there are people out there who are so out of touch with their basic humanity, and reality, that they would not have any idea how to conduct themselves in society, absent the code of an imaginary supernatural sky fairy, based on the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant bunch of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering goat herders.

Cooperation, altruism and love are innate properties of human existence... a more sophisticated version of the social organization that you can see among pods of dolphins or orcas, packs of wolves, lion prides and troops of chimpanzees. Moral consensus, moral conscience and mutual empathy are evolved survival traits. These are social constructs... the social lubrication that allows people to exist together. People come away with the misconception that these sentiments don't exist, absent religion. The religious puppet masters try to perpetuate that idea, in order to protect their conduits to wealth and power... but that is a canard. This has to do, entirely, with human nature.

***********************
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg
***********************

From the Bible, Evil is knowledge that God did not want us to have. Adam and Eve were naked and there was no problem, then, after eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they saw that they were naked and were ashamed. After this the story goes that we are all sinners, because, everyone from then on has the knowledge of good and evil in them and knowing the difference between the two is a sin, as you shouldn't know the the difference. Therefor if we don't know [feel] that something is [wrong] evil it would seem to follow (by bible logic) that it isn't, because if it were our innate knowledge of good and evil would tell us so. This explains how the church can justify killing, torture and babies going to hell............ Because it doesn't fell wrong, it fells right..........

Tim asked:
"What do you base your objective morals on? Is it animal behavior? If we base our morals on animal behavior than is it right for a man to force sex on woman. That is natural and seen in the animal kingdom? If you do not think that this is right, why?"

You didn't read my post very well, Tim. Remember this part?
"Behavior that contributes to individual welfare by increasing social cohesion and interaction..."

Rape doesn't increase social cohesion. And contrary to what you may believe, rape is relatively rare among animals - in fact, female choice is what drives a good bit of natural selection - all those secondary sexual characteristics that you find in males - the lion's mane, the peacock's tail, the cardinal's red color - are driven by female choice. They serve no other purpose than to attract a mate, and if this function didn't apply they might actually be detrimental, in that they attract predators. Not such a big concern for the lion, but that mane does require extra energy to grow and maintain.

Watch a female dog or cat that's just at the beginning or end of her season. The males are quite interested, and will try their luck, but she's not having any, no way, no how. If they could rape her, why don't they?

Every animal society has its own needs and its own set of rules to meet them. Wolf rules don't work for us, ours don't work for termites, but we're all animals, and our ancestors were selected according to how well their behavior worked to allow them to live and reproduce.

Tim, if you are just looking for yes or no answers and no actual analysis of your question, then why are you asking the question? It doesn't seem to me that you would gain much insight from the simple binary answer.

Pam: There are good objective and evolutionary reasons for these rules and they are written in our genetic code.

So if our genes would change, someday our morals may be different. Someday murdering an innocent person may be moral or ethical. I am not trying to be a jerk. I actually have spent time on both sides of the God arguement. What I have noticed and was guilty of myself was skating around this question? If I am deceiving myself about morals what else might I be deceiving myself about?

James

I am not looking for "smart, textured, psychologically and philosophically sophisticated comment on Hitler and evil." I can figure that out myself. I am just asking if objective morals exist. It is a yes or no answer.

Tims

James and Pam

First, I am enjoying the discussion.

Pam:

What do you base your objective morals on? Is it animal behavior? If we base our morals on animal behavior than is it right for a man to force sex on woman. That is natural and seen in the animal kingdom? If you do not think that this is right, why?

James: Humans have a pretty evolved moral sense.

But does an evolved moral sense make something objectively right or wrong?

Tim

Tim and Duckphup on the Evil One

tim-i had not read Duckphup's comment when I responded to you.

I have now gone back and read both.

Duckphup gives you a very smart, textured, psychologically and philosophically sophisticated comment on Hitler and evil.

It shows an understand of the complexity of human life.

You retort with a mindless binary question:
"well, was he good or evil!"
as if you had not read, and certainly not absorbed, the richness of the wisdom Duckie was trying to inject into the conversation.

OPenness to new thinking IS a good thing. Blindly repeating the thinking we hear from authorities is NOT a good thing. It leads to phenomena like Hitler's genocide of 6 million of us Jews.

Hitler and Evil

Tim
it is pretty universally acknowledged that Hitler was guilty of both War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

Evil is a pretty good word for that, I guess.
"Crimes against humanity" resonates better with me.

Humans have a pretty evolved moral sense.

Atheists like me have it just as much as believers like you seem to be.

There are some fuzzy areas. Murdering Hitler for instance.
Would that have been good or bad?
What would the 10 commandments say?

j

Duckphup,

So what you are saying is that Hitler was neither good nor evil. He just existed. Had he gone to trial, would it of been ethically right to try him for a war crime against humanity? If I understand what you are saying, then he actually was neither good nor bad? How would you have judged Hitler? Should he of been held accountable based on a preception of evil and how do you make this judgement?

Tim

"But to follow-up on his question, is there objective morals?"

Yes, I do believe there are objective codes of behavior (ethics, scruples - "morals" is more religious than I prefer, but it will do in a pinch).

Every animal society has rules of behavior - it's a large part of the definition of a social order. There are good objective and evolutionary reasons for these rules and they are written in our genetic code. Behavior that contributes to individual welfare by increasing social cohesion and interaction is selected for just as surely as any physical characteristic.

I suggest reading about social animals if you doubt this premise.

To my friends on tis Post

Richard Wade, you are a spiritually evolved man. Such insight and wisdom and equinimity. What happened to you to make you like this.

Ryan2: thank you for your apology. We Jewish people are perhaps oversensitive to casual holocaust references. "Get over it" someone once said to me.
But really, thanks for your sincere apology. We all fly off the handle at times (except Richard and Robin).

Peace sisters and brothers.

On other point: I think there is *some value* to the fact that the anonymity of the internet gives us the freedom to say things we would never say out in the world. We do reach some truth in voicing our sub/unconscious reactions in a reptilian way. It's dangerous, but i think it has some value (as long as you are not mean to me :-)

Many people seem to regard evil is a 'thing'... something that has some form of corporeal existence in the physical universe. What a load of nonsense. Evil does NOT 'exist' as a 'thing'... it exists only as an abstract 'concept'... one that is 'dualistic' in nature. 'Evil' cannot 'exist' without 'good'. They are the two sides of the same coin, in the Yin/Yang sense. One cannot 'exist' without the other; neither can be defined or described except in terms of the other.

Good/evil is further abstracted in the sense that it represents a 'judgement'... not a 'thing'. As a judgement, good/evil is wholly subjective, since it relies entirely upon the 'criteria' that is employed in making the judgement.

So, the real issue is not good/evil per se... rather, it is the CRITERIA that people use in MAKING their judgements of good/evil.

Nothing in the universe is inherently 'good' or 'evil'... it just IS.

Since we all pretty much share the same hardware, and are all wired pretty much the same, and share pretty much the same cultural values in a larger sense, we usually find ourselves on common ground when we judge questions such as "Was Hitler evil?", since we can agree on the criteria. (Murdering 6 million innocents can hardly be regarded as 'good' by a sane person.) However, we should realize that if Hitler had been asked the question "Are you evil?", he would have been thoroughly offended by the very idea. According to HIS criteria, he would have seen his actions as 'good'... for his people and for 'The Fatherland'. He is known to have said something to the effect that he saw himself as doing the work that Christianity had started, but never finished... i.e., he was doing "God's work". (He was nuts, of course... as are ALL people who see themselves as doing "God's work".)

When we get down to questions where someone's 'criteria' is drawn from interpretation of a particular verse in the Wholly Babble, or the Koran, for example, these kinds of judgements can get a little messy. Think about it... well over half of the world's population base their criteria for making judgements about good/evil upon the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of a bunch of ignorant Bronze Age fishermen and peripatetic (parapathetic?) goat herders.

The entire meaningful, worthwhile content of the Wholly Babble can be condensed into a single sentence: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The rest can be (and SHOULD be) farted off and dismissed as exceedingly bad fiction, without any adverse consequences whatsoever on overall the moral character of humanity.

Dear Mark Eaton,

If you'll answer the question I asked you earlier, I'll answer yours.

Remember?

For example, your most recent sentence: We are created by God for HIS pleasure and to give HIM glory.

Please restate that without using any human gender references. Our species wasn't around at the time you say your "God" created all that is, so that "God" is not one of us.

So would it be " ... created by God to give It pleasure ... " Or what?

This is not a trick question. Think of the implications.

Waiting,

Kate

I answered Mark's questions on another thread, but I'll repeat for this one:

Ok, Mark, I'll bite.

You wrote:
"Please answer the following question in your own words:

The reason I exist is:"

The reason I exist is because my mother and father decided to have sex on a particular day at a particular time. No more, no less.

Then you wrote:
"We are created to please and honor God. No other reason. It is extremely simple. You have tried to make it difficult."

Nope, I made it even simpler. And if you wanted to answer the question yourself, why did you ask?
Your answer assumes the existence of something that I don't believe (on the strength of the evidence) exists. Here's a question for you: If no one had told you about God, or given you a Bible to read (let's say you were raised by wolves) would you know he existed? How?

You wrote: "Atheism does nothing to answer the tough questions about ourselves. All is does is attempt to shoot holes in the true answers. Children cannot comprehend atheism because it does not make sense to them. It takes too much of an intellectual leap to believe."

Atheism doesn't attempt to answer *any* questions about us. It's not a belief system, it's the *lack* of belief in a diety. Science, on the other hand, answers a great many questions about ourselves, and has no goals other than knowledge for its own sake. Children who aren't indoctrinated in a faith have no problem with atheism. My nieces and nephews were raised without religion, other than what they encountered in their interactions with other children. All are non-believers as adults, and are happy, productive individuals.

You wrote: "I have several more questions if you think that one is too easy.
Why do we die? (Please leave biology out)"

I can't leave biology out. We die because we accumulate flaws (both micro and macro) that make it impossible to reproduce, or at least lowers the quality of offspring. When we can no longer pass on our genes, there is no evolutionary imperative to continue. Our dying makes more resources available to the younger ones who are still able to make more genetic copies. Sorry, that may be cold, but it's the way nature works.

"What happens after we die?"

Left to nature, we provide sustenance for other lifeforms. Cremated, we provide heat and light energy. Embalmed, we're pretty much wasted.

"Who was the very first person?"

Depends on your criteria for deciding what a person is. It was kind of like a morphed picture - lots of intermediate stages. The first to have every single characteristic that we recognize as Homo Sapiens today was an unknown person born to Cro Magnon parents, who was just a little bit different from them, not much.

"Why do we do bad things?"

We might not define "bad" exactly the same way, but there probably are some criteria that we could agree on (not others - as in some of the sexual rules laid down in the Bible). Murder is probably bad to both of us. Why do people murder? I suppose because they think that their immediate benefit will be served, even though it is detrimental to social order and to their inclusion within that society if their deed is discovered. Most will probably live to regret it, even if they're not caught - they will fear every knock on the door forever. There are also people who are simply born without the biological controls that most of us inherit from our social ancestors. Psychology terms them "amoral."

To Mark Eaton,
Many of us do not see our existence as having or requiring a reason outside of our existence. We exist, as best as we can sense. To seek a "reason" above and beyond a long chain of cause and effect is irrelevant to us.

Your belief in your reason for your existence gives your life meaning, purpose, guidance, perhaps even joy. I'm sincerely glad for you.

But your belief doesn't do that for everyone, and it never will for everyone.

As for children, you seem to imply that it is natural for children to believe in god. Children believe whatever their parents tell them until they are old enough to choose their views for themselves, and many freely choose to reject what they were taught.

Finally to your last two questions:
"Why do we die at all?"
Because old, long, carbon-based molecules wear out.
"What happens after we die?"
We become building material for new long, carbon-based molecules.

Speaking as a very large construction of carbon-based molecules, I must say I am really enjoying life, and enjoying helping in any way I can other big carbon-based constructions. The whole experience is fascinating, amazing and although having no meaning, purpose or reason outside of itself, it's thoroughly full of joy.

I've been accidentally fasting whilst reading all of the posts, so if I slip into a trancendental state I apologize in advance. ; )
Duckphup, I was most intrigued by your precognizant experience in relation to the death of your father. I don't beLIEve in the concept of god that religion(s) has/have created, which says nothing of the actual existence or non-existence of a positive universal force--that's why I don't beLIEve in the christian or islamic or jewish religious concept, because there's nothing positive about IT-- yet I too had a similar experience to yours, although not as profound, in that I was not in a wakened state at the time.
It was an early morning dream in which an old friend from high school appeared at a party I was attending, and she sat next to me and told me she was finally happy now. It was a more lucid dream than others I usually have and I was so excited to see her and we hugged and I was happy that she was happy because I knew from other old friends that she had some problems with heroin and booze and most recently meth, as well as "doing time" for fraud. After I awoke, I told my husband that I thought my friend, Kim was dead. That afternoon, my mother called and told me that my friend had been either murdered or committed suicide in a sleazy motel in North Ogden. My dream had occurred three days after her actual death...so my question to you Duckphup, is, what do you think it is that can causes this type of precognitive experience?

For anyone seeking "spiritual" experiences through music, I recommend a U2 concert or and REM concert...I even had a "spiritually" uplifting experience at a GreenDay concert!
Seems to me Paul Hewson aka Bono got it spot on with: "ONE LOVE, ONE LIFE BUT WE'RE NOT THE SAME, WE GET TO CARRY EACHOTHER, CARRY EACHOTHER: ONE." so all, even you Mark Eaton, "do what you should" to make this planet a better place for all living creatures--even the fly.
J.

Ryan 2, this is not a poke at you, however you did make an interesting assumption. Let me first say that I do not agree with anything that he has stated. I doubt that there are any atheist that agree either. But to follow-up on his question, is there objective morals? I believe that Hitler was morally wrong, but I also believe in an absolute truth (Creator). If Ryan2 is correct and there are not objective morals, did Hitler do anything wrong?

Tim

From Ryan:
“One side is right.
One side is wrong - way wrong.
Can you understand this?
Example:
Someone INSISTS I am 7' 11" tall.
Someone else says I am 6' 1" tall
One is objectively/factually right.
The other one is delusional with NO facts to back them up.
Can you understand this? Can you understand the frustration/anger towards the silly nut who uses no facts?”

From me:
Here is a problem, I understand how religion has tried to discount science (the world is only 6000 years old argument), but those who believe it to be true are of the uppermost fringe. You should not discount another person’s religion on the actions of a few, and conversely, those of faith should not look at Atheists as belligerent denouncers of anything religious. Horrific actions throughout history have occurred in both the name of religion, and the lack thereof. We need to watch out for one another only as humans, not just those of a certain belief or sect. I had made this comment on another thread, but I will make it here again:

There is no way to prove a God or disprove one. Most people of faith believe in an omniscient being that created the universe and has no beginning or end, essentially originating from nothing. An atheist believes in a universe created by an extremely high concentration of matter, essentially originating from nothing. To date neither can be disproved, and if looking rationally at both, they are both beyond human comprehension, and most likely will only be proved to each of us upon our deaths.

Again, I believe that the way for us is through a fleshing out of differences, both within religions and without, dialogue over such, understanding, and eventual acceptance with a strong purveyance of mutual respect. I can see no other recourse. In fact, for our future as a species, I would hope for no other.
Jeff

retraction

I meant all the good attributes that humans can attain and more of the (not less) bad attributes that can be eliminated.

Mark, in response to your three questions:
- The reason I exist is:
- Why do we die at all?
What happens to us after we die?

I don’t know. I suspect that most people don’t know, but I at least certainly haven’t found convincing evidence that provides answers to any of these questions. I spent the first 19 years of my life fervently praying and have read the Christian bible more times than I can remember. My ability to answer these questions within a Christian context certainly didn’t lack for trying! The evidence for the Christian God just wasn’t there for me.

In a way I think that to claim to know for certain the answer to these questions is to try to make ourselves into gods – to claim an omniscience that I, for one, know that I don’t have. I figure that I’ll know the answer to these questions when the time is right. Or I’ll just die, and I won’t. Either way, at least I’m not trying to fool myself into believing that I know the big answers.

Mark Eaton

Why do I exist?

I know nothing about science so I will answer to my ability as an uneducated atheist.

I don't know and further more where is it said I have to know? I have the choice to make my life mean something or not.

Why do we die at all?

As far as I can tell its the natural course of life.

What happens to us after we die?

Why does anything have to happen to us after death? ie: as in afterlife.

Live a life as full as a person wants it or can make it be with all the good attributes that humans can attain and as less of the bad attributes as they can eliminate. Why does there necessarily have to be more than that?

I prefer to live for the now and not the afterlife.

Ryan2, (possibly the same as just plain Ryan?)
Apology accepted, at least from me. Take heart, we actually are moving past all this. "Torturously" slow, (ahem) but we are none the less. Think of this as a several decades long process. We're a small part of a big change.

When you want people to see the error of their ways, don't poke them in the eye first.

I welcome your passion for justice and equity, and your channeling it into positive effort.

Ryan2,

I certainly can understand your frustration. But as Mr Wade suggested. Next time it may serve you better to get up walk away from the keyboard, take a breather and then return.

Ruth,

Perhaps this is a sign that we have found common ground?

If for only to show that atheists and the religous have much in common, aside from religion or lack there of.

To all that I offended. I am truly sorry

Ryan2

To all atheists:

Please answer the following question to the best of your ability:

The reason I exist is:

We are created by God for His pleasure and to give Him glory. Simple. Very simple.

Atheism provides us no answers to the very difficult questions of life. It only describes what is and what we know. It attempts to shoot holes in any real truth. Children do not believe in atheism. It is far too complicated for them. It takes an intellectual "leap of faith" that they cannot make. Nor should any make.

If you think the question I asked is too easy, how about these:

Why do we die at all?
What happens to us after we die?

Robin,

It seems to me you and I are pretty much both on the same page on most the issues we've discussed. I think we have some differences, too, but I have nothing else important to add to the discussion. Thanks for your reply!

This forum has really turned me off. From the remarks above, including Sam, I am really disturbed. The bad and good thing about blogs is that you can see what people really think, instead of fronts that many put up.

God bless all of you,
Tim

To Jonathan Switzer,
In general I enjoy your viewpoints. I would only differ on a few points you made about faith in science:
There's a difference between faith and a hypothesis. A hypothesis demands supporting evidence, if there is not sufficient evidence, the hypothesis is abandoned. The willingness to spend time and money to find that evidence you could call "faith" but that is an unfortunate, context-laden term. Faith, as in dogmatic faith requires no evidence, and is not abandoned even in the face of powerful contradictory evidence, as in say, creation myths.
There's a difference between faith and a hunch. Subconscious cues may lead one to a tentative idea, but as with a hypothesis, it must eventually stand or fall on evidence.
Finally there's a difference between faith and having confidence in an idea, a view, or a method of doing something. That confidence is based on the evidence found so far. Most careful scientists do not "believe" in a theory; they have confidence in it, because of he strength of the evidence. They also don't "believe" in the efficacy of science in general; they have plenty of evidence in its success to produce useful results, so they have confidence in it.

I really don't think there will ever be any danger of science reducing everything so much that we as humans lose all sense of wonder or awe or love or humility or unity or transcendence. Some individuals, regardless of their stand on science, suffer from the lack of such things, but humanity as a whole can continue to free itself from superstition without losing things that make life worth living.

Robin,

Sorry about the rant. I came from a different forum and was worked up. I just get so sick and tired of these pious people trying to inject their "morals" on us. They hate gays, try to make women subservent, persecute minorities, etc. When will we move past all of this? I can only hope.

Again, I apologize,

Ryan2

Ryan2 is clearly a crackpot

but his Jewish comment goes beyond psychosis

and enters the realm of

extreme socio-pathology.

if we had a combination of
white coat men
and
police

we would deputize them to lock Ryan2 up.

Ryan2,

I suspect you may be a troll just interjecting to stir up the pot. I wish you could understand that that type of thought is really not helpful at all.

Please go back and read your last so many posts and see that they are just to inflame and are not helpful in anyway.

As an atheist you don't speak for me or any of the other atheists I know.

Certainly you have freedom of speech as the rest of us but, anyone with any sense is not or should not respond to anything you have written in the last 100 posts so far.

James

Do you actually believe that objective morals exist? How do you decide that Hitler is better than 6 million Jews? There are NOT objective morals. That is your own opinion that 6 million Jews are more important than Hitler. You are acting like a zealot. Did you not know that Nazism is based on Darwin? Quit being politically correct. The Jews deserved what they got.

Ryan2

Mr Wade,

You are the voice of reason in an unreasonable world (or thread in this case)

Thank you for your input.

Ruth,

Thank you for your respectful reply. I shall try to do the same.

I agree that suffering does have its place. Its a human experience. We as humans can choose to take a good hard look at our personal suffering and understand (or try), learn and make changes if appropriate. Or choose to stay victims. Which is why as I said above I am not angry at a god/gods, again its a human experience. Athough, I really do have a problem with certain sufferings ie: infant sufferings (for example) having any good come from it?

Your comment about 9/11 I totally resonate with. The war was started IMO because of oil and war profiteering. Not to mention a failed foriegn diplomatic policy. Not any real religious reasoning. I had even made that same claim you did on 3 separate occasions, that I thought the US was fully aware of the attacks before hand. Of course I got that look of insanity handed back to me. I do believe that the US made some deal with the devil to ignore Bin Laden as long as they diverted attention towards Iraq. Mr Bush made that deal with the devil, and put himself at the short end of the stick. He can only hope that that is as far as it gets for his involvement.

I agree if Christians behaved as Christians should as well as kept religion out of government, there would be little need for the discussions that have occurred in many of these threads.

As far as the anger. There would have not been real change if not for the people that had held such passion about their causes. There have always been radicals in every cause, but if not for them the mission would have gone on more unnoticed than not. Certainly those people offended, but it was a necessary offense to allow others to wake up and notice the injustices of their beliefs.

ie: Black movement - womens rights etc.

If it wasn't for them, blacks would still be at the back of the bus and women in the in the kitchen.

Anger is a necessary evil in waking people up. Extreme anger or measures are never justified for any reason. ie: bodily harm, arson, death threats, wrongful imprisonment etc.

Those things have happened more times than not to atheists. You just won't read about it much in the news, as the christian right which is all through our country's govern't and news media do not allow these things to be broadcast. And because they are isolated instances. Atheist are basically out there on their own. There is no large movement of yet to help support the individual atheist to take a stand for what he/she believes is their right to religious freedom.

I for one hope with Harris, Dawkins and Dennett bringing more conscious awareness out in the public it will allow more of us to stand up and be counted in this world....some day.

Thank you for your time.

What is wrong with torture? We are mindless molecules bouncing off of each other occupying time and space. Do you all not get it??? There are not objective morals. They do not exist. Nothing is wrong with torture if it betters the strong. The religious are the weak in our society.

Ryan2

In Defense of Murder

Just quickly read Harris's defense of torture on Huffington post.

How many of you are in favor of murder?
Probably a low percentage.

How many would have
Murdered Hitler, given the chance,
if you would have thereby
saved 6 million Jews?

Probably a higher percentage.

Harris's base case is:

If you have a choice to
A. torture a terrorist and thereby save Manhattan from a nuclear explosion, or
B. just keep the terrorist under surveillance and let 6 million people die,

what would you do?

Few of us advocate randomly picking up children off the street and torturing them.

More of us think torturing prisoners at Guantanamo is no big deal (limbaugh,o'reilly, etc).

The case here is more difficult.
I myself think I would have *probably* murdered Hitler. And that I probably *should* have given the chance.

Context like this does make Harris' position somewhat more understandable, at least.

I think our Harvard Professor Alan Derschowitz, for instance,would defend Harris and his position.

Just to be clear:

Atheism is not the belief in the denial of god.
Atheism is a lack of belief.

If someone says, there is a god, the burden of proof is on that person.
If someone says, there is no god, the burden of proof is on that person.

If a claim is made about anything, one must substantiate that claim with some form of evidence. Someone says, "You won the lottery!"

"Well that's great!", you say. "Can I see the ticket?" Before you spend your money, you will make sure you first have the money to spend. We all require evidence, and claims about life, the universe, and god should not remain immune to evidence.

Atheism is, in essence, a suspension of conviction, but the divide is not 50/50. I lean toward no god, but always remain open if evidence presents itself. Nature, through science, occurs by naturalistic processes, without any divine guidance. Minus the pantheism, Nature is God. It isn't an entity, it is a process that tinkers by natural selection. This is why I lean toward no god.

Anyone who holds conviction that god does or does not exist lives in the same boat, unanchored from evidence, adrift at sea.

What's the big deal with torture, anyway? Do all of the Christians on here forget what was done in Spain. Christians are the biggest hipocrips I have ever seen. You know what I am for. Torturing Christians :->

Ryan2

Kathy, Mark speaks only for himself, not for me, or any other "secularist" on this thread, for what I can see.

Progress:
This is my first post. I have been lurking for a while, but I now feel the need to stick up for us atheist. Regarding the Alternet article. I have a hard time believing that Sam would say that, but, in the name of progress, what would be wrong with eliminating these religious zealots. I would be much more for torturing Xtians than the peaceful Muslims, though. Xtians and Israel are the main cause of the world problems today.

Cheers, Progress

I can not believe I just read this.

JM

James,

Thank you for the information on atheism and societal health, I appreciate your prompt reply.

Here is a link to an article Sam Harris wrote for the Huffington Post called, "In Defense of Torture.":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

I've noticed it doesn't appear on the SamHarris.org website with the other Huffington Post articles - curious...

I'm also hoping Sam's meditative practice will make him into a more compassionate man, but I'm not holding my breath. Some of the posters here give me some hope, though...

For those concerned with the alternet.org article, I suggest reading Sam Harris's posted response: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

I found it consistent with what he wrote in "The End of Faith."

This is my first post. I have been lurking for a while, but I now feel the need to stick up for us atheist. Regarding the Alternet article. I have a hard time believing that Sam would say that, but, in the name of progress, what would be wrong with eliminating these religious zealots. I would be much more for torturing Xtians than the peaceful Muslims, though. Xtians and Israel are the main cause of the world problems today.

Cheers, Progress

Adding "Selfless" to the title is a good move.

Open consciousness reveals truth. The brain is adapted to grasp its glimpse of truth and manipulate it. This closes off a bite of what was truth and forms a captive part of the growing web of the self.

The self is a temporal structure. It grows steadily and leaves its past forms behind. The self strives toward a future state that it imagines will be better. But fresh and living truth is always here and now.

Renewal comes when the self reopens and receives new revelation. Full opening leads to dissolution and resurrection. All this is known in the eastern meditative traditions. It is new only to Godites.

Thanks, Sam. You are giving us good ideas.

In the "End of Faith," I found that Sam Harris did put forward a reasonable case for torture in some very select circumstances. That said, I still think that torture is usually wrong. I think that war is usually wrong. I think that any violence against other people and animals is usually wrong. I can see how, in some very select and unambiguous circumstances, war and perhaps even torture may be necessary to protect innocent lives. But I would think that all possible alternatives should be explored first. Violence is the worst possible answer to the world's problems.

That said, individual people have all kind of thoughts and opinions, some of which are better thought out and more supported by evidence than others. I wouldn't accept anything that Jesus said just because he is Jesus. I wouldn't accept anything that the Dalai Lama says just because he is the Dalai Lama. Neither would I accept anything that Sam Harris said just because he is Sam Harris.

I would recommend that before criticizing the ideas on torture that Sam puts forward in his book, that people actually read the book. His views can easily be made to seen to be more horrible and irrational than they are when described by his detractors.

Mark, JM, Kathy, IDiots

Re: http://alternet.org/story/46196

I agree with Sam. Torture all who is trying to impede science. Hopefully we can rid ourselves of these IDiots.

Sam is the Man

http://alternet.org/story/46196

Look at the responses at the bottom of the page. Harris is trying to back track as fast as possible. He even puts up a response on his website. It sure would be sad if he truly believes in torture. I agree with Kathy about secularist deciding what is OK or moral. That would mean that morals can evolve. Hopefully, these enlightended ones would not knock up back to the days of Stalin based on evolving morals.

TD5287

Re Jonathan’s comment “So, pull yourself up by your bootstraps atheists, but know this, your faith that science can describe natural processes and that technology can harness those processes to improve the world rests on generations of humans who believed that God wanted us to "steward" the whole world and "take responsibility" for our actions.”

How does science rest in any way upon the beliefs of Christians? Many ideas about how the world works that is stated in the Christian bible (as facts) have shown to be completely false using scientific methods. Prominent Christians have, now and in the past, deliberately impeded science and people’s knowledge of it. I would say that science is still used as a process of gaining knowledge DESPITE the generations of humans who believed in the Christian god.

Ryan,
You can do better than play the "ugly atheist." You're articulate enough to disagree effectively with Mark or Ruth without resorting to being snide or condescending, or practicing armchair psychiatry. When you do that, you leave yourself wide open to the reciprocal suggestion that your vitriol indicates that you are the one who needs meds.

Don't be like Mr. Fury played by Ben Stiller in "Mystery Men." He would have useless tantrums while everyone else was working at actually making a difference. You can raise the level of this discussion rather than lower it.

When you feel pissed off, walk away from the keyboard, and think about the picture of society you would like to live in. My guess is it would be a society where people practice mutual decency and respect for diversity. Speak as if you already live in that place.

James

I suggest reading the article posted here:
http://alternet.org/story/46196

Mark

Mark

This is what scares me about secularist. They are only tolerant to being intolerant.

"We know [torture] works. It has worked. It's just a lie to say that it has never worked," he says. "Accidentally torturing a few innocent people" is no big deal next to bombing them, he continues. Why sweat it?

I bet in the future secularist will be for torturing if it will promote "science."

Kathy

Mark

could you give us the citation evidence,
(book and page)
where Harris supports

1. ESP and reincarnation.

2. waterboarding and torture.

thank so much.

Also, a couple of things about faith. Faith is defined as, "the evidence of things hoped for..." According to this definiton all scientific endeavor begins with faith. Follow me here, before you get angry at my small mind. The scientist "believes" there is an explanation that is natural. Even if he has not yet found that explanation, he believes it to be true. Therefore, without any immediate understanding of what exactly that explanation is, he begins to hypothesize and patiently rule out explanations that do not fit. However, until he finds a theory that fits, that is "true", his action is completely motivated by his belief or faith that there is a scientific explanation. Furthermore, all "reason" is motivated by the "faith" that there is a logical natural explanation for what we see. I, too, have faith that there is a logical explanation and natural process for everything. That faith/belief is true to all endeavors. It is deep and abiding in its irrepresible confidence that everything can be explained if we are willing to stay at it. However, I think all of us do believe that there is a mystery to the Universe. Both the relgionist and the atheist share this belief. Both of them share a desire to understand it better and the "faith" that if they stick with it long enough they will. All science is motivated by an unexplained confidence that the natural processes of everything can be explained. Interesting that science found its greatest human vitality in the West. That is simply a historical fact. Somewhere along the way we transcended Plato and Aristotle's fate and started "believing" that life could not only be understood but that we could choose to do things better. We transcended the Buddhist belief that we are just dealing with past personal karma. We started to really believe that progress in knowledge and technology was not just possible but desirable. That belief began hundreds of years before there was the extensive realization of the dream we see today. I guess I am saying that the idea of progressive Evolution would never have evolved in Buddhist, Greco/Roman, Egyptian and Islamic societies. It was an idea that required faith in the possibility of change. The possibility of transformation. Shakespeare's emphasis on the responsibility of his characters in their destiny arose in the West, not the East. So, pull yourself up by your bootstraps atheists, but know this, your faith that science can describe natural processes and that technology can harness those processes to improve the world rests on generations of humans who believed that God wanted us to "steward" the whole world and "take responsibility" for our actions. We share the irrepressible confidence that humans should take that responsibility seriously and apply every intellectual vigor to its accomplishment. We both "believe" that tomorrow can be better than today.

Religious Belief and Societal Health

There was an interesting article in the Journal of Religion and Society about the relationship between belief and societal health. web reference here:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

REMEMBER
The Old Wives Tale has been
IF A society turns away from God
that society will go to hell.

Well, this article pretty well disproves that myth.

Many countries involved in the study.
Just one tidbit: when you compare the US to 12-14 of the developed European countries where belief in God is MUCH lower than the US
you see that the US sucks (academic term) compared to these other countries
on measures like
homicide rate, infant mortality, abortion rate !!!, STD rate *US much higher**, many many others.

Does this prove that
Atheism leads to Societal Health?

No. the evidence is mounting but correlation does not prove causation.

HOWEVER
it is very strong evidence that
NON-belief DOES NOT lead to societal collapse.

and the reverse,
atheism leads to healthy societies,
is a POSSIBLE explanation.

http://alternet.org/story/46196

The thrust of Harris's best-sellers is that with the world so crazed by religion, it's high time Americans stopped tolerating faith in the Rapture, the Resurrection and anything else not grounded in evidence. Only trouble is, our country's foremost promoter of "reason" is also supportive of ESP, reincarnation and other unscientific concepts. Not all of it is harmless yoga class hokum -- he's also a proponent of waterboarding and other forms of torture.

"We know [torture] works. It has worked. It's just a lie to say that it has never worked," he says. "Accidentally torturing a few innocent people" is no big deal next to bombing them, he continues. Why sweat it?

I wanted to interview Harris to find out why a man sold to the American public as the voice of scientific reason is promoting Hindu gods and mind reading in his writing. But we spend much of our time discussing his call for torture and his Buddhist perspectives on "compassionately killing the bad guy."

Only on some secular site is this is the voice of reason

Mark

Jonathan, Re “They simply are disinclined to describe those experiences in terms of relation to a higher power.”

I don’t think that disinclination is the right word, here. I think that such people don’t describe those experiences in terms of a higher power because they have insufficient evidence that these experiences have anything to do with a personalized higher power. I don’t view the difference as being a “descriptive choice” as you say later in your post, but as a rational refusal to attach my spiritual experiences to one higher power or another without evidence. An attachment of these spiritual experiences to particular higher powers would have practical repercussions for my thinking and behavior, the specifics of which would depend on which personalized higher power(s) I chose and affect people around me. One’s choice in believing in personalized higher powers matters! So choose wisely …

Duckphup,
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once:

"I'm a militant agnostic - I don't know, and YOU DON'T EITHER!"

ABD,

I don't subscribe to a "bible" or any other of the fraudulent, fairytale-filled, holy books.

And it's true that the Islamic world was once the leader in science and math. But that ended way back in the 12th century when Islamic theologians like Imam Ghazzali pushed the Islamic world into its position of anti-science, anti-intellectualism, and anti-freethought. It's been stuck in the ancient and dark middle ages ever since. In the last few decades, of all the many scientists to be awarded honors in their fields, only two were Muslim. Indeed, a very sad waste of, and for, humanity.

And now the Christians in the US are diligently pursuing the same "anti" positions in favor of those ridiculous fantasy beliefs in the absurd they defend by calling it "faith" -- as if that deserved any respect whatsoever, which is surely does not.

Actually, that is the point I was making. I agree that all of us are able to feel things emotionally. I was simply making that point that understanding those emotions requires something more than thorough scientific explanations. If we are all in agreement that those emotions are dealing with something real, then it simply makes sense that "selfless consciousness without faith" could legitimately be an experience of something that is personal is nature. Let us all describe it as being one with the Universe and connected to everything, however, it seems cold to remove the personality of either side of the experience. Is this not part of why Sam's post here has received such an overwhelming response? All of the atheist posters here are in agreement that they have experienced something that seems to correspond to those "spiritual" experiences described by religionists. They agree that meditation, relationships or enjoying nature has facilitated those moments of "selfless consciousness". They simply are disinclined to describe those experiences in terms of relation to a higher power. My point is simply twofold: 1. that the choice to reduce those moments to neuronic activity does nothing to explain the "fullness" of those experiences (as most here would agree) and more disagreeably 2. that choosing an impersonalized interpretation of those experiences is not necessarily more scientific but only a descriptive choice(it only reveals a personal choice to reject the idea of a personalized greater power). Which, in this case, we are dealing with emotions most commonly associated with relationships with others. Why depersonalize it? Buddha, of course, would have agreed with your depersonalizing choices. That was his definition of enlightenment (total disconnect from personal attachment to anything).

Mark writes to Sam:
"You are not any closer to knowing yourself, to connecting with anyone else, or to grasping truth. You felt something in your soul but your spirit is still dead."

Mark, like Ruth, YOU do not make the rules. Got it? You people are beginning to scare me with your delusional babbling.

Mark and all the rest. Please get help. It's out there if you'll just give it a try. Medications do have side effects no doubt - but we've come a long way in treating delusional disorders. If meds don't work, I think there are de-programming centers out there to help you (if not, why not?)

Good luck to you. I'm thinking of you.

James, thanks for your kind reply! I do have one question: you mention Britain and Holland have high rates of atheism and are also ahead of the U.S. in terms of societal health. Is there some information suggesting these two are related, or is it possible they're coincidental? I'm just curious.

Mark Eaton,

I think it's time for your meds. You're spewing nonsensical gobbledygook again.

Is anyone else aware of this article? Give me some good ol' atheism.

http://alternet.org/story/46196/

I just had an interesting thought pertaining to the definition of 'agnostic'; i.e., one who does not know, or can not know, whether god(s) exist. The simple fact is that NOBODY knows, or CAN know, whether god(s) exist. In that sense, EVERYBODY is agnostic... its just that a huge fraction of the earth's population THINK that they KNOW that supernatural sky fairies (gods, angels, etc.) exist... in the face of a total absense of credible evidence... but they do not and can not KNOW. It seems that they are unable to distinguish between knowledge and wishful, magical thinking. They lack the capacity to recognize and acknowledge their actual ignorance. Atheists and rational agnostics DO have the capacity to recognize and acknowledge their actual ignorance (lack of knowledge).

I think that I will henceforth refer to the religiose as 'deluded agnostics', to reflect their actual state of cognizence, and to distinguish them from 'rational agnostics'... which, of course, encompasses atheists, as well.

Jonathan's Plea for Humanity

Jonathan: an eloquent plea.

I think most atheists i know are as spiritually atuned as believers.

To every thing there is a season, a time for neuronal explanations, and a time for spiritual discussion.

When I talk about my love for my daughter, I don't talk about my neurons. When I feel sad for the suffering of the Iraqi people and American soldiers, I don't talk about my neurons. when i am overwhelmed by Beethoven....etc

When I discuss why some people believe in God, I do have to reduce that to a neuronal/chemical/biological need at some point that I explain using evolutionary psychology.

I can't subscribe to the
"I believe in God because God exists:
explanation.

This belief is all biological. It has behavioral manifestations, as do many of our biological functions. but to explain why it happens, you have to invoke neurons and chemistry at some point.

Hello everyone.

Certainly reducing spiritual experiences to neuron transmissions is a fine thing. I could do the same for my "love" for my son, but am severely uninterested in reducing the profound emotional experience of fatherhood to something less than personal. Our ability to understand the minute workings of brain, and chemicals of the body does not ultimately explain the "fullness" of our lives. De-personalizing and scientizing everything only shows a deep abiding confidence in humanity's ability to perceive natural phenomena. Understanding the expansive "fullness" of life requires a bit more. Explaining how an engine works does not explain why we have cars. Perhaps science can produce a group of people who are able to spend their lives explaining everything through reduced scientific rationale. In fact, that group is likely to enjoy deeply the experiences they are so fascinated to de-mistify. However, no one ultimately can deny the pervasive cry of humanity expressed so well by the proverb: "What a man truly desires is unfailing love, better to be poor than a liar." If love is truly scientifically discernible as a thing, then I am sure we would all agree on this, "greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend." Maybe, it is just the neurons in the back side of my brain that cause me to feel like these two proverbs explain every single one of us well. Nevertheless, the death of a nueron does not communicate sacrifice to me. The firing of a neuron does not communicate love to me....And those are the things that really inspire the imagination (for the scientifically obsessive, "fire the nuerons). Sure, reduce whatever can be reduced. However, undermine motivation for great deeds and all we have left is non-firing neurons in a brain that struggles to stop telling the body to produce depression chemicals.

Thanks everyone so much for your comments! I didn't think my analogy would get much attention, but it certainly seems to have struck a chord. Let's hope the atheist movement results in a complete separation of church and state in America so we can let each other believe in whatever we want to in our personal lives.

James, I never meant to state or imply the women's movement was any kind of a waste, but I am still a little disillusioned the Equal Rights Amendment never passed.

Anonymous, I never, ever believed George W. Bush was a Christian! I think his record as governor of Texas speaks for itself. And as far as him worshipping God goes, he's not even a member of a congregation of any Christian church. He's a member of Bohemian Grove and Skull & Bones, two organizations known to be involved with the occult. If Bush worships a god, it's not the one most people think of when they think of "God," it's an entity known to most as "Satan" or "Beelzebub."

Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are, and I would have to say judging from their actions, there's not a single well known fundamentalist Christian leader in the country who is actually a Christian! That's why there's so much confusion over what Christianity really is: it's supposed to be the following of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Hello everyone.

Certainly reducing spiritual experiences to neuron transmissions is a fine thing. I could do the same for my "love" for my son, but am severely uninterested in reducing the profound emotional experience of fatherhood to something less than personal. Our ability to understand the minute workings of brain, and chemicals of the body does not ultimately explain the "fullness" of our lives. De-personalizing and scientizing everything only shows a deep abiding confidence in humanity's ability to perceive natural phenomena. Understanding the expansive "fullness" of life requires a bit more. Explaining how an engine works does not explain why we have cars. Perhaps science can produce a group of people who are able to spend their lives explaining everything through reduced scientific rationale. In fact, that group is likely to enjoy deeply the experiences they are so fascinated to de-mistify. However, no one ultimately can deny the pervasive cry of humanity expressed so well by the proverb: "What a man truly desires is unfailing love, better to be poor than a liar." If love is truly scientifically discernible as a thing, then I am sure we would all agree on this, "greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend." Maybe, it is just the neurons in the back side of my brain that cause me to feel like these two proverbs explain every single one of us well. Nevertheless, the death of a nueron does not communicate love to me. The firing of a neuron does not communicate sacrifice to me....And those are the things that really inspire the imagination (for the scientifically obsessive, "fire the nuerons). Reduce whatever can be reduced. However, undermine motivation for great deeds and all we have left is non-firing neurons in a brain that struggles to stop telling the body to produce depression chemicals.