Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum To all Atheists:

There are many questions Ive been wondering since I start believng God is not real. If any of you have wondered the same and come up with satisfactory answers, please let me know. Also, feel free to reply with a question of your own which I may think about/answer.

My questions:

1. If there is no God, and we are random creations, then what is the meaning of life? What do we plan to achieve while we are alive? Why even live, if life has no point?

2. What proof do you require in order to start believing in God? (What kind of events would need to happen for you to belive in him)

3. Are there any scientific way or ideas of experiments to prove or disprove god?

1. a. We don't understand the nature of "random."
b. Evolution is not entirely random.
c. We have to ascribe our own meaning - there probably is no "cosmic meaning." Just because the universe doesn't care about or even notice us doesn't mean that we can or shouldn't care for ourselves.

2. Personal introduction. None of the fancy speeches, none of the emotional blathering, none of the pseudo-intellectual fake philosophizing.

3. Science is not capable of addressing the subject of God.

I reject the idea of god not because I have evidence there is no god, but mostly because the idea is silly to begin with.

1. Whatever you may feel about the randomness of our appearance in the cosmos, the meaning or lack thereof that one perceives in one's life is entirely personal. The absence of a god does not deprive life of meaning. All the realities remain intact. No less real are love and beauty and all of the other poetry of human experience, whether or not one ascribes them to a Zeus or Ptah or Indra or whoever. These realities are accepted for what they are by the many of us who see them as fully sufficient unto themselves. When you experience 'purpose', you don't need to give it a name, or dress it up in mythology.

Regarding the feeling of purpose: on a practical level, meditation is of great benefit to many people in becoming conscious of purpose - including atheist scientists.

2. There need be no search for proof of God.

3. Quote TFF: "Science is not capable of addressing the subject of God."

On one hand, almost all the cultures which have thrived in the last 2000 - 5000 years have had a strong support of religous background. It is obvious from this that religion played a big role in uniting men and brining them under the lawfulness (I dont think thats a word, but it gets the point across) of society. Even today, it gives men moral standards to live by. On the other hand, aethists, such as you and me, know that god doesnt really exist and it is really silly (and hard) to believe in a relgion which is based on something fake. So..

Do you think men in general are better off without religion? Do you think YOU are better off without religion? Or would you rather have a religion which does not entail a God, but only a set of moral standards to live by? Why or why not?

Kevat wrote

Or would you rather have a religion which does not entail a God, but only a set of moral standards to live by? Why or why not?


There is no such thing as a religion that does not believe in something- whether a God or the divine. That is the meaning of "religion". There is no "only" with regard to moral standards. We all have them. Religions help to codify them, but it is possible to behave in a sociable way, that does not disgust other people or yourself, without any divine interference or adherence to any religion. Bear in mind however that some people have horrible anti-social moral standards and profess to be religious- though some in that situation do not. It's a matter for choice, and religion is as optional as anything else.

KS: "religion played a big role in uniting men and brining them under the lawfulness...of society."

- Systems of ‘divine law’ such as sharia law still exist, but we can do very much better without them.

KS: "Even today, it gives men moral standards to live by."

- Manifestly, religion encourages not only ethical behaviour, but also incites extremely unethical behaviour. Human beings are capable of ethical behaviour without indulging in the superfluous fantasies of religion.

KS: "Do you think men in general are better off without religion?"

- Yes; but if you're interested in what's true rather than what's expedient, then the question is irrelevant.

KS:said "religion played a big role in uniting men and bringing them under the lawfulness...of society."

I agree it has caused wars in the wrong hands. But that should not take away from the fact that it united men in the beginning. I agree that you dont need religion for morality, but I think having it will help install morality at a better level. Take for example the following analogy:

We dont need schools to study. We can learn to read and write on our own, through our parents, just as we would learn moral values from them. But having an education system obviously improves our learning abilities. The way an education system affects learning is the same way in which religion affects morality.

Religion has a smaller role now, but it had a great role once. When it wasn't being misused, it lead to socities which still exist today after thousands of years. Like from the analogy beofre, you're not gonna be a bad person by not being religious. But having an organized method of teaching children morals (or even adults), specially aethists who have no means of doing so other than their parents and what they learn themselves, would prove much more advantageous.

I also agree that religions in wrong hands can cause a great deal of misery. If you notice, much of the misery actually comes from the NAME of your god rather than its values. Like you said, everyone practices, to some extent, a part of the ten commandments. What is different for most part is what they call their god. What I was getting at is this:

What if you had an organization, like a religion, which said nothing about God or what his name was, but simply how men should live, what should be important in our lives, what is right and what is wrong. This would reduce the wars over what God's name is (Allah? God? Krishna?) and also allow a STRUCTURED way for aethists to build their moral values without being forced to believe in something you know doesnt exist.

Let me know if that makes sense, or if I should explain it further. I hope you take this matter seriously, because this is something I have really thought about for years and am convinced is the right way for us to go.

Most religions are divisive. They teach that there are a god's rules to be obeyed. These rules then become the rules of the secular society, and will be also obeyed. There is no longer need for social reform, inequality and poverty are able exist, but that does not matter because in the sight of God (whichever one you are referring to) all of us are equal and we will all get our reward in the afterlife. This idea of reward AFTER death still is a powerful motivation for many people. I suppose when you are at the bottom of the heap any chance of redemption and paradise would be enticing. Religion stultifies social progress in every area, as questioning and change is frightening to those who are religious . When the fact of the overwhelming patriarchy of most of the powerful organised religions is also considered it is easy to see how alienating religious behaviour really is.

Religions are divisive in every area of life. Many preach that their religion is the only one that is right. Within each particular religions the religious heirarchy is superior to the rest of the congregation. Most religions have a male priesthood, some are so afraid of female contamination they have a celibate clergy advising women on the daily conduct of their lives, and they separate the men and women as much as possible, even in their place of worship. Some teach about 'sin', and condemn 'sinners' to wretched lives, not only now, but also throughout the eternity that they promise to believers. All religious priests will bless the soldiers of their country as they set off to fight and kill the children of their enemies. (who incidentally, are similarly blessed).

We pay a very high price when we allow someone else's invisible friend to dictate rules of conduct. There is only one real rule- it is-- "Treat others as you would have them treat you". It always works, without any divine inspiration.


KS wrote:
What if you had an organization, like a religion, which said nothing about God or what his name was, but simply how men should live, what should be important in our lives, what is right and what is wrong. This would reduce the wars over what God's name is (Allah? God? Krishna?) and also allow a STRUCTURED way for aethists to build their moral values without being forced to believe in something you know doesnt exist.


I am a bit worried by discussing this para:, however I will stick my neck out--here goes! Here in Australia we have a government, elected by us, that tries to do what you suggest. It makes secular laws, in Parliament, to help us all to live a happy and peaceful life, all of us, that is everyone who lives here -- Isn't that what is supposed to happen?

KS: "What if you had an organization, like a religion, which said nothing about God or what his name was, but simply how men should live, what should be important in our lives, what is right and what is wrong."

- Sounds like Humanism to me:

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=309

Which says a lot about those things, e.g. -

"Thus it is not humanist values that are parasitic on religious ones, but the reverse. True human values are rooted in our need to live fulfilling lives and to share them with others. These values are to be found at all periods of history and in all parts of the world. Unsurprisingly, they are also found in all the great world religions, but there they are always combined and overlaid with other values which are either absurd and trivial (such as insisting that everybody rests from work on the same day of the week or eats only certain kinds of meat) or actively pernicious (such as persecuting gays or stoning adulterers). The core, rational values are humanist ones."

Damn it! I wanted to found humanism...j/k. On a more serious note though, this is EXACTLY what I was looking for. I didnt even know something like this existed. Thanks for the help red.

Ellis: The part of AFTERLIFE which works is that it gives men hope and something to live for. It kind of gives meaning to life, which otherswise would be pointless. There are other real meanings to life, such as quest for knowledge and happiness, and that is what religions should really offer instead of some fake belief in heavens that dont exist. If religions preached "Live and let Live" or like you said "Treat other like they treat you" then this world would be a MUCH better place. That is what a real religion should be doing in order to bring peace to this world.

As for the government, it does provide us with an outline of what we should do. But again, it would be like the Board of Education providing you with an outlineof class materials and saying, this is what you should know and learn. That is completely different from going to schools/universities where you learn through guidance and conversations. Thats the difference between government and the religion which I would like to see.

KS "What if you had an organization, like a religion, which said nothing about God or what his name was, but simply how men should live, what should be important in our lives, what is right and what is wrong."

The basic tenets of Buddhism are that one should follow a moral life but it says nothing about god. Is that what you are trying to describe?

KV wrote
Ellis: The part of AFTERLIFE which works is that it gives men hope and something to live for. It kind of gives meaning to life, which otherswise would be pointless. There are other real meanings to life, such as quest for knowledge and happiness, and that is what religions should really offer instead of some fake belief in heavens that dont exist. If religions preached "Live and let Live" or like you said "Treat other like they treat you" then this world would be a MUCH better place. That is what a real religion should be doing in order to bring peace to this world.


Life is not meaningless because there is no belief in an afterlife. In fact life seems to have more meaning if it is acknowledged that this is absolutely all there is ever going to be. We live on, if that is what we wish, in the memory of our family and friends- and if we are lucky enough to have children, in the lives of our descendants. The 'do as you would be done by' thing is at the original core of most religions, as well as the core thinking of any reasonable human. My point is that there is no need to ginger it up with silly rules, supposedly divinely inspired, but in reality supporting the idea of unchanging regulation. Religions always stifle change, even progressive change, and it is ironical to realise that the ideas of the founders of many of the successful religions were in fact revolutionary in their day.


Rose: Whilst I think that Buddhism has some attractive beliefs I have some difficulty with the idea of reincarnation and successive lives. One reason is that I think it is, well, actually really silly, and secondly, because I loath the idea of disease and misfortune being the result of personal sin -instead of a chance meeting with, for eg, a virus, or a speeding car. I especially hate the idea of the parents' sins being taken as the reason for children's illnesses and unexpected deaths. It's a horrible suggestion. I understand Buddhism is not alone in this doctrine.

Thanks for the reply Ellis. I think you and I are trying to say the same thing. You see, I figured this out when I was 11; the true meaning of life isn't to search for heaven, but live life happily cause you only live it once. At the same time, if you want anything you do to matter, then your deeds should be so great that they remembered and more importantly people (humans) must be alive to remember them. If mankind were to die out a few years from now, then I would certainly feel a sort of helplessness and futileness about life. Because I want things I do today to matter, saving man's future becomes the important task at hand, almost as if that was the meaning of my life. It seems as though you are going along the same path ("we live on...in the lives of our descendents").

The problem is not with you and me. We are intellectual enough to be discussing god on a science (or not-so-science) forum. They question is about people who may not be intellectually inclined enough to reach that conlcusion themselves, but at the same time are smart enough to see through religion and see the idea of God for what it really is. You've figured out that your memories will live on, and will sooner or later figure out mankind must live on for your memories to live on. But there are many out there who cannot figure that out. I am saying this, cause I know people who were like that, and I used to be like that myself. They are simply lost, cause they know God doesnt exist, but can't really answer the question of life themselves. Who's there to show them the way? No one really, they're left to figure it out on their own. People like you and me who understand the concepts of live and let live and the importance of living on through the lives of our dependants should be there helping others find the way as well. Maybe then people would see why spending money on science to protect our future makes more sense than spending money on a pointless war.

Rose: Buddhism was not what I was getting at for the exact reason Ellis said. Humanism is actually damn close to what I am trying to describe.

A few thoughts on Humanism and Buddhism.

Humanism may be described as a way if life and as a philosophy, i.e., a conclusion, devoid of metaphysics, with regard to perceived truth and values by which one tries to live. The same may be said of Buddhism, except that it's not entirely devoid of metaphysics. That is perhaps is the main difference between Humanism and Buddhism (generally speaking). Humanism is simpler and less encumbered. It has no dependence upon historical events and artefacts, nor upon sacred texts, canonical or otherwise. Nowhere is there to be found the worship of a god or of divinities. All of these are to be found within the various forms of Buddhism, either in the theory or the practice. Buddhism has been prone to significant modification by the various cultures into which it has been introduced. Thus there many and diverse beliefs and practices throughout its domain. The practices are less consequential, and no doubt beneficial, since they are concerned with harmless ritual which probably serves several purposes such as recollection of the 'truth' and promotion of fellowship within the community. The beliefs however, although perhaps mostly innocuous, are inevitably divisive. One therefore finds Theravada Buddhism (The Lesser Vehicle) and many versions of Mahayana Buddhism (The Greater Vehicle) having mutually exclusive beliefs.

I should add that the eastern philosophy with which I can most identify is that held by the Dalai Lama who, quite typically, said that if there's any dispute between science and Buddhism, then science wins. Humanism, however, appears to have totally shed all the inherited paraphernalia of religion, and takes a fresh look at reality from a truly scientific, yet human, perspective.

As I said, those are just a few thoughts, and I would be interested to read the thoughts of anyone else on the comparison of Humanism with Buddhism.

KS, please define what you mean when you write "God".

KS, or for that matter any sceptic: Tell us what you have in mind when you write "God". This will help provide a basis for helpful dialogue.

BTW, I accept that all sincerely-held beliefs are valid. So are opinions. Meanwhile keep in mind: For me, GØD is a far greater concept that a personal being who looks somewhat like a super human-like male being.

did you know that there is a midget living in the center of the earth? what??? don't believe me? its so obvious!! why ele would the earth be spinning? there MUST be a midget living there... plus, what evidence do you have to disprove this?

classic... need i say more?

BFP, so you are backing the dogma that there is "midget living at the center of the earth" as your definition of "God".

BTW, he is not a midget. The "True Faith" declares that He is a GIANT. But, because we believe He is a friendly and loving Giant, you have no need to fear that we will harm you because of you do not have the True "faith", yet. For your edification, we do not require proof, one way or the other--just unquestioning belief.

No doubt you have heard of Bertrand Russell's pararable of the celestial tea pot orbiting between the Earth and Mars. See pages 51-52 of The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. After a brief period of agnosticism he and all his followers became a-teapotists. Sad, eh?

God, from what I gather, represents any entity which makes the universe work. Often, God is also associated with creating the universe and everything in it. A majority of the people who believe in god, also believe that god has some control over their life and can make things happen if God so wishes. The idea of God is almost always coupled with the idea of afterlife. Often, people who believe in God also believe that their life right now is just a passage into the afterlife. This gives more meaning to their lives and makes them behave appropriately (try to commit less sins in order to get into heaven, for example). That is what I have in mind when I say God.

THANKS FOR THE DIALOGUE
=======================
KS, if this is what you believe thanks for taking the opportunity to dialogue about it.

Your name and the things you write about leads me to assume you are a follower of Islam. What branch? BTW, the wife--BTW, she is a great person--of my only son, and the mother of our only three grandchildren is from Iran. What a wonderful combination of genes they have. She follows the Islamic path known as Suffism. From what I have read about Suffism (the Suffi poet Rumi, who is often quoted by Depak Chopra, comes to mind), it is on the same wave length as what I call unitheism--similar to panentheism. Check in Wikipedia and check how I sign my posts.

Culturally, I was raised a very inclusive Christian church--the United Church of Canada, which was formed in 1925. It is a liberal mix of Presbyterianism, Methodism, Congregationalism and a number of other denominations.

"Presbyterian" means that each person is his/her own priest before God. Presbyterian leaders are strong advocates of education and democracy--government of the people, by the people and for the people (John Knox). Princeton University was founded by the Presbyterian church. Lincoln was a Presbyterian. This is why he quoted this in his famous Gettysburg Address.

Methodism--originally used as an insulting epithet--grew out of the Church of England (the Anglican Church) under the leadership of the Wesley family--especially the mother, Susanna, and her three three sons, John, Charles and Thomas--all loyal Anglican ministers. The Methodists were, and still are, keen on bringing about social justice for all, especially the poor. The Salvation Army grew out of Methodism. So did what we call public education. Boston University--I did two years of postgraduate work there--was founded by the Methodist church.

Congregationalism. Harvard University was founded by the Congregationalists. Congregationalism avoids hierarchical rule. The congregation, the minister and the board make the rules.

===========================
redewenur, You say, "I should add that the eastern philosophy with which I can most identify is that held by the Dalai Lama who, quite typically, said that if there's any dispute between science and Buddhism, then science wins."

I like the inclusive non-theist kind of Buddhism,the kind I presume is preached by the DL. The great inventor, Nicola Tesla, who gave us alternating current was very interested in understanding the nature and role of human spirituality (His father was a minister). He called for Christians and Buddhists to get together. I agree. I am not a traditional and dogmatic Christian, and I don't think that Jesus was. He was a Jew who set out to reform Judaism and make it more inclusive and universal.

BTW, did you hear the saying: "Any dispute between the imagination and reason, imagination tends to dominate." This perhaps explains why many intelligent and imaginative people often do that which is irrational.

I am actually Hindu and from India. Thanks for the information about the different churches. But you still don't seem to have answered many of the questions I put forth. First of all, do you believe in God? If so, what is your definition of God?

PROCESS THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY
================================
Check out the work of the mathematician and philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
In his thinking about "God" he was an advocate of panentheism--what I call unitheism
http://www.unitheist.org/whatis.html

As I write elsewhere and indicate in my signature, for me, GØD is not just a being to whom I can point and say: There is GØD. But rather, GØD is the One--the total, the universal all-encompassing and all-inclusive, everywhere-present Spirit. In my opinion, GØD is that which is in through and around you, me, others; in through and around every atom and atomic particle, the planets, the galaxies and the Cosmos.
Given the above definition of GØD, like Carl Jung, I say I know and experience GØD, not just believe in a god.

Notice the special way I write the Divine name. I use all capitals and Ø (null--in maths, the set without numbers).
I presume this refers to the infinitely small and/or infinitely large. Orthodox Jews do a similar thing. They write G-d.

The - and/or the Ø refers to the mystery of it all, beyond what our science can measure. In my opinion, all scientific measurements are approximate. There is no exact science.

"The - refers to the mystery of it all, beyond what our science can measure."
I do not see the utility of it - and as I've said previously any term like this is laden with baggage that it destined to mislead.

"In my opinion, all scientific measurements are approximate. There is no exact science."
Your opinion on this corresponds to the facts. Measurements are never exact. Note that the use of the null symbol to denote the empty set applies to counting (which can be exact) and not measuring (which cannot).

One could even argue that counting is always exact and if it is not exact it is called estimating.

TFF writes: "...the empty set applies to counting (which can be exact) and not measuring (which cannot)." Counting can be exact?
Are astronomers capable of counting all the galaxies, not to mention the stars and the planets, in the cosmos?

BTW, TFF, I presume you write as an agnostic. Did you ever belong to a religion? If so, when did you change your mind? And what caused you to do so?

When you refer to the dash, that is, the '-' (As used by Orthodox Jews) as "laden with baggage": Describe what you mean by baggage.

THIS FROM TODAY'S SCIENCE NEWS
==============================
TFF, talking about measuring and counting, take note of the following:

=============================================
I have long suspected that there is a connection between the kind of pneumatological beings, or spiritual beings, we are and the kind of genetic make up we have. In other words, there are spiritual genes, which are not necessarily fixed in place--they are subject to being changed. This could mean that we can--using meditation and the like--influence, for good or ill, our spiritual, mental and physical states of being.

Dare we assume that we are truly responsible for everything we experience? And that, using our spiritual natures, we can do something about it? We are who we choose to be?

Pneumatology--the study of the Spirit--is not quite a science, yet. But it seems it is getting there.

"Counting can be exact?"
Yes. It *can* be. Some people would say that it *must* be. AND that what astronomers do when "counting" galaxies is actually "estimating." In either case, it at least *can* be exact as when I count the number of people in a room or the number of marbles in a sack.

baggage = assumptions about what a thing is or what properties it manifests that aren't explicit in the revised definition. These assumptions are due to the natural tendency of a person to conflate the properties of things that are similarly named. You do this when, for example, you think of the universe as everything and then use it only to describe those things which are desirable.

i'm ok with people believing in odd things, having weird fears etc etc... just as long as they don't try to convince me that they are better than i and that i should try to be more like them...

TFF writes: "baggage = assumptions about what a thing is or what properties it manifests that aren't explicit in the revised definition..."
This is why I feel that when we dialogue about complex ideas--For example "God"--I like for people to given me their definition, not just the one in the dictionary.

You go on: "...for example, you think of the universe as everything and then use it only to describe those things which are desirable." If you mean me, I accept the Universe, warts and all. But I choose to avoid the warts and work on processing the all good. BTW, for those who find the word God, or the word I use in my signature, has too much baggage, I am comfortable with calling the "ground of all being" Nature, or Universe.

I am all about the moral, ethical and loving use of GOD, Nature, or the Universe, not about creeds--certainly not about imposed ones. I like to refer to deeds, not creeds--unless they motivate me to be more loving.

"This is why I feel that when we dialogue about complex ideas"
Finding out what they mean is not less important than finding out what YOU mean. You define a term one way and then you implicitly narrow it down as if it only meant part of that. That narrowing is part of the baggage in the term.

TFF: TFF, if you expect me to understand you and give a rational response, you might try giving me a "for example".

BTW, in http://www.brainmeta.com/ there is a brilliant scientist and an agnostic, Rick. Recently he wrote: "Can we get away from calling it gee oh dee? That would help dialog a lot."

He wants us to drop the name "God" and use "nature, or universe".
I am not sure, yet, what he has in mind. Pantheism? I will find out. Then I will make up my mind whether dialogue is of any real value and to any real purpose.

When it come to accepting the ideas, beliefs, the culture, whatever, of others, I am usually very accommodating. However, I refuse to accept that as human beings we are nothing more than physical objects--cosmic accidents "created" by a physical cosmos, just mechanical robots which simply appear to be human beings (a meaningless term, in the context). As human-like robots, we a nothing more than computerize robots equipped with futuristic artificial intelligence. Therefore, we are disposable and devoid of anything that can be described as spiritual (another meaningless term, in the context)--in tune with the infinite and the eternal.

BTW, if physicalism--check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
--is the truth: that all life ends at death, the bad news is: Even if the physical cosmos survives, ad infinitum, as such, no one alive before us, and alive now, will ever know. When one considers that all pain and suffering for such will be over this is not all that bad news. But the fact remains: We will not know.
I feel this is a bummer.

This means that no physicalist reading my posts will ever get the pleasure of reminding me: What a fool you were to believe in such nonsense you called unitheism, panentheism http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=panentheism:
And look at the time you wasted advocating pneumatology--the scientific study of spirituality.

However, if there is life after our personal deaths, think of the fun I will have. I quickly add: I promise not to gloat if any of you find yourselves in purgatory. Or, heaven forbid: in hell.

My definition of purgatory? Reincarnation, in one form or another. I accept the teachings of Buddhism here.
My definition of hell? Physicalism's non existence. I do not accept the traditional definition that hell is place of eternal suffering and pain.
My definition of heaven? The opportunity to continue the work I
am currently doing. I do not accept the traditional teaching that it a place where the TRUE BELIEVERS will rest in peace, forever. I do not want rest. I want the energy, courage and strength to keep on living according to the principle of the Golden Rule--LOVE in action.

BFPig--Rather an odd name, eh?--: You speak of being tolerant of people who believe in, "...odd things, having weird fears etc etc..." Is this your impression of me: One who believes in odd things and is filled with weird fears? Tell me: What are some of my odd ideas and weird fears?

BTW, "odd" is a very relative appellation, don't you agree? Atheists in a Muslim nation are obviously ones with the odd ideas. So are theists in a strictly secular country.

PANENTHEISM--details:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

TFF, GØD just led me to this:

My hope is: Science will address the claims of panentheism. Or as I prefer to name it, unitheism, which sees G0D as inside nature. And I welcome, and offer to assist, any scientist (pneumatologist or theologist) with the patience to do so.

Question: If the natural cosmos is expanding, into what is it expanding?

Rev asks--
Question: If the natural cosmos is expanding, into what is it expanding?

I think it is expanding into--- whatever is there--or, to look at it another way-- whatever is there after it is expanded into and thus it is recognised as being there by being expanded into.

(Please remember I am not a scientist). (That's obvious eh?)

Ellis, I think of a scientist as anyone, not necessarily with a university education--but it helps--who is willing to take a scientific approach to any field of knowledge; one who has a thirst for new knowledge, is willing to challenge old ideas that no longer work, and drop them when they don't. Also, he is willing to do experiments to prove his claims and in the discovery of new principles or laws.

I have two postgraduate degrees in the history of ideas, including philosophy/psychology and theology (mta.Ca, the Atlantic School of Theology and Boston University). Interestingly, Darwin's only degree was a bachelor of theology from Cambridge. Edison had little formal education. Would he or Edison get a job in a modern research lab? Not likely. But who would be the loser?

THEOLOGY AND PNEUMATOLOGY--the serious study of God and Spirit
==============================================================
BTW, I agree with atheists who says that the claims, especially the extraordinary ones, made by all the religions ought to be challenged. They ought to be challenged to come up with statistics and other forms of extraordinary evidence.

If I had the financial resources I would love to set up a lab in which research experiments would be done on the claims of the religions, on prayer, meditation and the like. I abhor blind faith and equate it to superstition.

Take note that in Jesus day, what we call wind, air, breath and the atmosphere which surrounds the earth--then thought of as flat--was looked on as extraordinary. For the ancients it was as extraordinary as what we today call the space--the vacuum--into which the cosmos is expanding.

The New Testament Greek for SPIRIT is PNEUMA (from which we get words like pneumatology, pneumatic and pneumonia). It translates the Hebrew, RUAH, the Aramaic (the language of Jesus) ROOKA, the Latin SPIRITUS (from which we get spirit, Holy Spirit (of God) and the Arabic RUH. All these words refer to the mystery and emptiness of space, including the vacuum. In John 4:24, Jesus equates Pneuma with Theos (God). From theos we get theology.

LET ME PUT WHAT I SAID ABOVE, ABOUT RESEARCH, IN OTHER WORDS
============================================================
I accept that there is a place for sincere faith--that is, believing without having to have absolute and concrete evidence.
Faith is a powerful spiritual quality which can be used for good or ill. Much of what we do is based on faith, including what happens in the sciences, the arts and the marketplace.

All religions say: We must have faith. So do political demagogues, and sincere candidates for office. But I ask, what kind? Sure faith can go beyond reason, should it ever contradict it? I think not.

If I had the financial resources I would love to set up a lab and have a research program for the purpose of examining the nature and function of faith, and claims made for it by the religions. Keep in mind: I abhor blind faith, no matter what the source, and equate it to superstition.

For example, with the help of the media I would love to explore the following questions: What is going on in the world of radio and TV evangelism? Is it just so much fraud? Are their claims of miraculous healings for real? Or are such claims just a whole lot of fraud without any foundation of truth?

Some research has already been done, but I would also like to see more of it done, on the nature, function and effectiveness of prayer and meditation. Are they of any practical value?

Revl,
Good to see you back from "Spring Break," and hope all is well.
I enjoy this question so much; it really pushes the limits of imagination, and hurts the brain a little bit.
...and thank you Ellis for a worthy answer. Scientists do no better or worse, I think.

Now that I've passed the dreaded post number, maybe I'll try a comment on this topic. The server only went down for a couple of hours after I hit that repetitive number this time.

I figure what is "out there" is the higher dimensions, which inform and direct our spatio-temporal universe.
...String Theories... E-8 Lie Group + 3D + Time = 11 dimensions total... or whatever.

"Out there" is some E-8 unmoved mover;
Preceding and transcending time and space;
Omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent;
Filled with unnameable dimensions, beyond comprehension.

What can we call something such as this; the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Whatever we call it, it is easy enough to translate into our own terms when we hear it.

Whether you call it "God's Plan" or "The Big Picture of Evolution," they are both inscrutable; but we have faith that the imperative is to continue, to be sustainable.

Sounds good Sam. It seems to me that the bottom line is this: My role in life is to adopt an attitude of LOVE towards everyone and all things, and stop resisting what it is that G0D has in store for me.

Rev: it would be churlish to argue with that! However may I suggest you substitute LIFE for GOD- then I'll agree with you completely?

"Whatever we call it, it is easy enough to translate into our own terms when we hear it." -#25258

Our culture and upbringing lead us to use different terminology for these grand concepts, but I think ultimately (with way too much analysis) we mean the same thing (though too often folks are loathe to admit it).

...or words to that effect.

Ellis, as I understand you, you like the ideas I expressed above. Thanks! However, what you have a problem with is the nomenclature I use.

May I suggest a compromise?: In your dialogue with me I have no problem with you using LIFE--and I will use it back to you.
However, when I dialogue with others--for example, theists and atheists--may I continue to use GØD?
I realize that it has become controversial. But. for me it is--like the Orthodox-Jewish term, G-d--a gender-free and non-anthropomorphic term. This why I use it in my signature.

Sam- Whilst I agree with much that you say, the trouble with calling that which fills us with incomprehensible awe GOD, or any other name which seems to indicate a supernatural source, is that I do not recognise that the supernatural exists. It would be easy to say that we mean the same thing, but I do not think we do. I have no difficulty with living my life excluding the possibility that the divine, the supernatural or GOD exists. I agree that those grand concepts you speak of exist- indeed they often make life worthwhile- but I do not take the next step and attribute them to a god or other para-normal origin. I understand that others do--but I do not recognise the need to believe that 'the divine', in any form, guides our lives.

Ellis, I have no problem thinking of GØD/LIFE as being quite super and very natural--not unlike the quantum and super computers being created by Seth Lloyd.

As I have already mentioned:For me, GØD=shortform, or way of saying "super quantum computer at our service. But it is up to us to make the connection and keep on doing so." I do it moment by moment--just like I do with my PC--even when I am going through a viral infection. I just rose above it, this AM.

THE UNIVERSE AS A SUPER AND QUANTUM COMPUTER
============================================
I have the strong feeling that Lloyd is on the right track: The universe is a super quantum computer with which we have the potential to connect (In Aramaic, the word for 'pray' means to connect.)I feel guided by everything I experience. And it is not a god separate and apart from nature.

THE LAW OF ATTRACTION
=====================
This approach helps anyone learn about and use the law of attraction. Specifically, the attraction of good things.

Did I mention the narrow escape my wife and I had in Florida? Pardon me if this is a repeat. Put it down to my age: I was making what I felt was a safe entrance into a line of traffic. Out of nowhere came a car, speeding. My wife yelled, "Look out for that car...or words to that effect..." All I know is, without any conscious thought on my part, the other driver and I did the right thing and a crash was avoided by less than 6 feet.

Coincidence? Maybe. But what I know is: The more connected I keep with GØD'LIFE, the more positive coincidences keep happening.
And it is free to anyone willing to make the choice to stay connected. Keep in mind that this process has nothing to with having to belong to a dogmatic, imposing and formal religion...........

IS THE FOLLOWING ANOTHER "COINCIDENCE"?
=====================================
Out of the blue (or, was it from GØD?) I got the following communication. It is from a writer who describes himself as a quantum physicist:
http://www.believeandmanifest.net/1/bam/law-of-attraction-report.php
Whoever sent this, it sure ties in with what I have been studying and with how practical quantum physics can be in with demonstrating the law of attraction.

Doesnt seem like a coincidence, seems more like a sales pitch about his new book. I only have one question about this entity which you called god. What makes you believe something like that exists? Is it only coincidences like these and that time you almost got into a car accident? I agree with a lot of the things like we should all live in peace with each other. But I fail to see how any of this ties into the type of God which exists everywhere. Care to explain what the connection between the two is?

KS, thanks for your interesting comments and questions. BTW, I have a great deal of respect for atheists who find it possible to be happy, moral, ethical and loving people under all circumstances.

It prompts me to ask: What is it that gives you the strength and moral courage to do it, seemingly, without any invisible means of support?

Keep in mind that GØD, in my humble opinion, is not "an" entity--a personal being separate and apart from all that IS-- It is my short form for all that IS. If you have another way of defining this, I am all ears.

You ask: "Care to explain what the connection between the two is?"

The two? The two what?

KS, before you answer, keep in mind that at my age, I am full of stories, which I often use to answer sincere questions.

Now, how do you respond to my questions?

Rev wrote:

"I have a great deal of respect for atheists who find it possible to be happy, moral, ethical and loving people under all circumstances."

Oh come on Rev--ALL circumstances-- it would take Jesus Christ, Buddha, The Dalai Lama (possibly!) and Mother Theresa to be nice under ALL circumstances. And now I come to think of it Jesus had a bit of a temper tantrum in the Temple at the money changers.

Kevat-- I think the need to believe is summed up by Rev here----

"It prompts me to ask: What is it that gives you the strength and moral courage to do it, seemingly, without any invisible means of support?"

Many people seem to need to have a support on which they can depend as a reason or excuse for their moral behaviour. This was cruelly mocked by some comedian or other as "the devil made me do it"! Add a system that promises life after death in some form or other and it becomes very attractive to believe.

Rev - What gives me strength is the pursuit of truth. If we keep trying to find what is true, only then can we come up with the right answer. This leads me to question:
"What is the connection between the two"
What I mean by that was, what is the connection between these coincidences and an ever present god? How do these coincidences provide support for your idea of a God (which is simply all that is). It seems to me like you are saying that everything exists in a harmony (hence the universe being a quantum computer). How does this idea of everything in the universe being god relate to these coincidences? Are you saying that the universe, or some part of it made these coincidences happen to prove a point?

Ellis - What I meant by "What makes you believe..." is not why someone needs to believe in god, but why someone would believe in something they cannot see or hear.

You're thinking of the late Flip Wilson. Interestingly, we get our word 'devil' from the Greek, diabolos (hence, diabolic). It literally means that which splits us from the good (God), within ourselves, others and in the universe. The inner self is also the location of the so-called 'devil'--green (envy) and red (anger) variety

Speaking of the universe: As a unitheist, I experience the universe as being made of all kinds of qualities, which are both visible and invisible. Isn't much of the light spectrum "invisible" to the naked eye? But who would argue that it is of little consequence to us.

ARE WE HERE TO CONVERT OTHERS?
=============================
BTW, It not my desire to convert atheists--or for that matter anyone--and have them become unitheists?

My goal with any other human being is the same as it is with my son's wife, a Sufi Muslim--the mother of my only three wonderful
grandchildren. What I want--and am having with my family--is to have healthy relationship so that we can work together to make the world a place of prosperity, justice, joy and peace, for all people.

This is what we are making the basis of our weekly fellowship http://www.pathwayschurch.ca It is based entirely on the non-sectarian principle of the Golden Rule.

Ref-- I think your theory has much to do with animism, in that animism suggests that the divine is in everything and we can see evidence for it in all of nature and natural forms/phenomena. Have you a comment?

Thanks for reminding me regarding the name of Flip Wilson. I just could not recall it (oh dear-another senior moment!)

Ellis, I have always been interested in how the divine force of faith--IMO, a non-sectarian quality--works in and through all that is.

Because, even as a student, of my interest in psychology, religion and healing, many of my early sermons (beginning in the 1950's--focussed on the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus. IMO, he was a psychotherapist--I prefer to use 'pneumatherapist'--long before the idea was invented.

In the winter of 1964--I was 34 that January--I was urged on, by a member of the church (Toronto east) I then served, to offer a series of lectures in which I could give more details about what I felt was the role of the spirit (pneuma) in helping to heal the mind (psyche) and the body (soma).

He told me: "I like the drift that you are taking in your morning sermons. So do a lot of my friends. If you will do a series of lectures on healing on a Sunday evening, I will helped get it organized. In the lecture series you will have the opportunity to go into more details about what you have in mind."

He did. And the series was a great success.

The lectures were based on the book, PRAYER CAN CHANGES YOUR LIFE (Prentice Hall, 1957) by the psychologist, Dr. William Parker with the help of Elaine St. Johns, writer.

Based on the story of how he recovered from his own serious illness, Dr. Parker--a WW 2 vet--tells the story of a real experiment carried out over a year. It involved three groups of 15 people each: One used traditional prayer; one used psychotherapy, and one used a combination, which he called "prayer therapy".

The results of the experiment demonstrated that the combined use of meditative prayer and psychology helped a lot more people get well a lot faster than either psychology or traditional prayer did on their own.
===================================
The first series of healing lectures, which I called PRAYER THERAPY attracted a large group of people. So did a second series, and a third, a forth, etc. I began using the non-sectarian title, PNEUMATOLOGY--the study of the human spirit.
Because there was a wide interest in the connection between faith, suggestion, hypnosis and the like the series attracted the interest of the all the media. There was even a front page story.
Naturally, there were attacks by the traditional religionists. This was good publicity for us.

PNEUMATOLOGY GREW
=================
When I moved to North Toronto (1966), so did the series. There, until I retired in 1994, it evolved, grew and gave rise to a number of weekly programs and experiments, including the Family Life Foundation http://www.flfcanada.com And, as they: the rest is history--and ongoing.

Ellis, you and others may be interested in what I just wrote to a widely-read National Post columnist (Canada), Robert Fulford--a great communicator--the following communication:
=======================
Robert:

Thanks for your National Post article, today, on THINKING ABOUT FUNDAMENTALISM.

Interestingly, every Tuesday, over breakfast (7:00 AM), I meet for dialogue--it is not a debate--with a group of evangelical fundamentalists. Because we agree to disagree, agreeably, it is usually an enjoyable and lively experience. We usually discuss certain Bible passages and how they relate to what it going on in the media.

The leader, a fairly bright lawyer, is a friend of mine.

CHARLES TEMPLETON
=================
BTW, in your column you mentioned the late (2001) Charles Templeton. I first met him after he stopped being a well-known Christian evangelist and, eventually, wrote his book, Farewell To God, which I have and read.

I first met Charles in the early 1960's, in the presence of Allen Spraggett, then the religion editor of the Toronto Star, and himself a former evangelist. We became friends. Now in his seventies, he is retired and lives in Aurora. I think Charles was the editor of the Star at the time. We met at a social gathering at his home.

I remember him challenging me: Lindsay, like me, you will not remain part of the organized church, for long. You think too much.

Several times following this, I had encounters with Charles, including one on a TV talk show. Last going off, I had several phone conversations with him, which, with his permission, I recorded. They are still part of a collection I keep. He was amazed when I told him that I was still doing my stuff--thinking outside the box--and within the United Church.

AS OF 2008
==========
I now belong to a fellowship http://pathwayschurch.ca which I helped get started (2005) here in Markham. Interestingly, it is officially part of the UC of Canada and encourages thinking outside the box. Charles would be most welcome here and, I feel, comfortable in such an open and inclusive fellowship which encourages critical analysis and thinking. We are not required to check our brains before our sacred gatherings.

Questions I often ask, to any one of the disparate collection of fundamentalists I meet, are as follows: If God is one, which one of the several fundamentalist churches is His? Can there be more than one kind of fundamentalism?

BTW, how come God avoids being part of the Internet? One infallible website would be very convenient, don't you think? If God needs a base, I invite Him, any time He chooses, to become part of the Family Life page.

Robert, one final point: I call myself a unitheist. How aware are you of what I call unitheism? (panentheism) It is based on the ideas of Alfred North Whitehead--process philosophy and theology. For details check out the work of the Rev. Charles Hartshorne, who popularized Whitehead's work.

For the work of Whitehead, check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

Thanks for your most interesting writing,

Lindsay G. King
(905) 764-1125

Good one! LOL Thanks for sharing.

...some thoughts on this past week's posts.
Translating these terms such as God/Nature, or "God's Plan" & "Evolution," shouldn't focus on equating certain attributes of the juxtaposed definitions.

The Effect that each unique understanding has On a person (which each person creates from these different definitions) is what should be translated.

A definition's effect on a person is what should be acceptingly comprehended.

Some easily translated qualities that are fulfilled in a person by their varying definitions (of loosely, science/religion) are:
IMHO
providing comfort, joy, and exaltation; as well as refuge, solace, and resilience:
inspiring wonder, motivation, and responsibility:
endowing relevance, integrative understanding, and inspiration:
providing interpretative power, integrative explanations, and predictive power:
facilitating interaction, language and jargon, a sense of community, and support systems.

One may see another's definitions as insufficient, but that is often within one's own terms of relevance.
It often depends on the purposes for which one needs understanding in their life, that affects their choice of framework or worldview.

For instance, when we speak of the supernatural, it is only in reference to the extant of "natural" currently understood. To me, the "natural," material universe only composes about 5% of the known universe (other 95% is dark matter or energy); and that doesn't even address the higher dimensions from which our spacetime is derived.

I certainly don't know of anything persuasive, but I allow for possibilities that something "supernatural" may in fact be natural in the end.
It's a quantum, relativistic worldview, in which all possibilities exist; but depending on circumstances, certain possibilities decohere and (are translated to) become "real" enough for that time. (ala Seth Lloyd?)

I'm not advocating that we drop all standards of concordance between "personalized" definitions, but I don't think we should get hung up on the details of natural/supernatural, personal/impartial, animist/theist/deist, or if something is "all-pervasive," "within & through," "informed by,' or simply "all there is."

My purpose in trying to be accepting of other's definitions is to try and include these "anti-science" folks in the "scientific" efforts to rescue the biosphere here on Earth.
Many Evangelicals are now seeing stewardship as important. I just don't want to alienate them when they come asking for advice.
Being humble isn't just a good value for religious people. Scientifists would do the world a great service by avoiding, especially in unfamiliar circumstances, sounding self-righteous.

An experienced farmer may achieve better outcomes, using his 5 senses to evaluate the soil, than an experienced scientist could by using the best available technology. Don't alienate the farmers!

Sam, it seems to me what you are saying is this: We need to look on differences of race, language, culture and religion, whatever, not as divisive ones, but as enriching differences. IMO. if someone happens to speak a different language the opportunity is to find the best translation, not to use it as an excuse to develop a feeling of alienation.

BTW, Sam, have you heard of the work of
http://www.conversationswithgod.org/

Currently, I am reading the book, Conversations With God, whiich was given to me by a friend.
Later, I will give my opinion.

The basic thrust of the book, CwG--very unitheistic, BTW--is not a new idea to me.

I realize that writers need to be paid for their efforts, but I feel that this is an attempt by the writer to do what all leaders of religion do: They commercialize things. In return for cash, they offer to supply the need that some people have for some guru, or leader of a movement, to tell them ... Well, let us leave it there, for now.

SUMMARY OF THE BOOK: Whether we realize it or not each of us is involved in--through the use of our feelings, (the language of the soul --having an on-going state of communication with God. In addition to our feelings, God also communicates with us through our thoughts and experiences

Atheists take note: You may call it what you will, but the author states that God is the essential self (the Spirit GOD) in each and all of us. Is there any denying the "essential self"?

HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN GOD IS COMMUNICATING?
God communicates and says, mine is always your Highest thoughts, your Clearest Words, your Grandest Feelings. Anything less is from another source. Listen for communications filled with feelings of joy, truth and love.

WHAT ABOUT PRAYER?
Is it okay to ask God to send you joy, truth and love. The best attitude is one of gratitude, of appreciation, not supplication, or begging. Never beg or supplicate. Appreciate. Stop resisting, get your ego out of the way and the things of joy, truth and love will come.

In the beginning, we human beings were the first and only things created by God. All else--that is, all others things--is the creation of our egos, which are dominated by the feeling of fear.
Keep in mind that every human action is based on either love or fear--all other ideas are but derivatives of these two.

COMPARING LOVE WITH FEAR:

Love expands, reveals, shares, heals and attracts the things loved. It is willing the best, under all circumstances. It is our experience of God. By the way, God is not a human-like being with a gender, but the ultimate reality, the all.

It is our soul purpose to remember that we can be loving. We are here to know this, experience this and to be loving. Being itself then becomes bliss.

Fear contracts, runs, hides, hoards, harms and attracts the things feared. It is the main cause of pain and suffering, including disease, all those dreadful wars and why the world is in the shape it is in.

Keep in mind: we have the power to choose loving, or fearing. (to page 33)

Rev quoted:

Atheists take note: You may call it what you will, but the author states that God is the essential self (the Spirit GOD) in each and all of us. Is there any denying the "essential self"?

That is such a copout!!! Religious people do this all the time! Of course you can deny that the warm fuzzies ( or whatever is being discussed at the time as a defining aspect of the divine) are god. If they are in fact the "essential self", what's wrong with that? My essential self is me, myself and I and has nothing to do with god.

Similarly I acknowledge and am glad for the existence of love, but I do not then make the sweeping statement that experiencing love is experiencing god. It isn't- it's experiencing love, as fear is experiencing fear.

And you have not loved if sometimes that loving has not lead to unexpected pain and suffering.

Thanks for the "fireworks" from your "essential self", Ellis.

You sound like the bird which was asked: Do you believe in air? "Air?" asked the bird, "What's air?"

Ah, the communication of ideas is not all that easy. Let me assure you that I am not sure that I take all the ideas in the book, CwG, at face value. But I do agree with the general thrust of the book: The ultimate goal of the "all" is the Highest Good (Love) of all that is.

Rev,
You sound like the guy who referred to smiley faces as fairy dust. How can you possibly deny the existence of fairy dust? You see smiley faces! Right?

Haven't been posting lately, but perusal of the very literate and informed comments on this topic was inspiration to join in.

Been an atheist in the past, and depending on definition of theism might still be considered that by some fundamentalist-types at least, but consider myself a unitheist.

Was raised Methodist, then Presbyterian, then could no longer recite the Apostle's Creed, so made myself scarce (Dad's still an active lay minister and slightly worried about me).

While not a supernaturalist I see a non-being-like ultimate reality in the world, in my spirit, and in the minds of others.

What is not explainable by natural means might be called crypto-natural (natural but not yet understood) rather than supernatural. Mary Baker Eddy was a crytonaturalist but didn't use that term to describe herself.

Been busy trying to work through issues of meaning, purpose, etc. mostly at the unitheist fellowship site, which BTW Rev. King wrote a good article for, "What is Unitheism?" (a little lite horn-tooting, hope you don't mind RLK

I'm still reading, learning, and pondering though, as well as writing.

Rev-- When the little bird discovered that he breathed in air someone was then able to prove to the curious little fellow that he was breathing in a mixture of measurable gases. Whilst I am not sure how the chirpy little creature felt about that at least his answer was a totally satisfying proven scientific fact, as opposed to love being god- because I said so- that's why.

Welcome, Warren and fellow unitheist! We haven't chatted in some time. I do check out your site now and then:
http://www.unitheist.org/

BTW, While I was in Florida a few weeks ago I heard the news about the wind, rain and flooding in the Paducah, Ohio-valley area. How was it in your area?

Glad you're still checking out the site, Rev.

I like to think of it as an alternative for those who while can't believe in a being-type God believe in something more than what science has heretofore discovered, and/or are interested in questions beyond the realm of science-- life purpose, etc.

We just grapple with those issues as much or more than claim to answer them.

We had flooding in the area but Paducah did not have to start putting in floodgates-- my house is on high ground

rev i don't know what your fears and beliefs are, but what i had in mind was the religious/superstitious beliefs & fears; ie, afraid of going to hell, afraid of death, believe that there is some kind of ultimate justice etc etc... these are odd/weird beliefs/fears in my mind.

and my name; chosen as a joke and as a trap for judgmental folk; insult my name and label yourself a judgmental pig lol

BFP. You inquire as to what are my fears. If life is eternally meaningful, what is there to fear? May I ask: What are yours?

As for me, I prefer to pay attention to that which I believe to be true. In the words of Longfellow, the poet: Life is real, life is earnest, and our death is not the goal; Dust thou art and dust returnest was not written of the soul.

I have faith, hope and love that life, no matter what, is eternal.

I am interested in knowing: What is the "faith" of atheists?

i don't believe that life is eternal. i really wouldn't want to live forever either. life is meaningless on a cosmic scale. fears? i cant think of any.

i have a question; do you remember what it was like before being born; i mean; before you came into existance? how did it feel?

"what is the faith of atheists" i assume that you're asking me...

i don't know, i'm not an atheist, nor am i religious. i prefer to ignore those battle grounds; call it rational ignorance; a waste of attention.

BFP asksSome people, like my daughter, do have this ability. I can only imagine it.

You say, "... i'm not an atheist, nor am i religious. i prefer to ignore those battle grounds; call it rational ignorance; a waste of attention."

I do not mean this as a put-down, but to me you seem to have chosen as your life's role simply to be a clever animal. I hope you are well-trained, kind and have a master who loves you

BTW, I accept the possibility that there is re-incarnation and that animals and things do go on into the eternal now, which we call the future. For me, there is only NOW. Future and past are illusions.

I also accept all sincerely held beliefs.

I think of G0D--all goodness, order and design--as the "essential self" within and beyond me--the collective consciousness. I can think of this "ES" as being like Seth Lloyd's quantum computer with which I can carry on an on-going conversation and seek guidance for life.
I am amazed, daily, at the practical and helpful results I get.

"I do not mean this as a put-down, but to me you seem to have chosen as your life's role simply to be a clever animal. \:\) I hope you are well-trained, kind and have a master who loves you \:D"

hahaha i see that you have chosen the same life-role @ clever animal

i used to have the same opinions about god as you do; i was raised in a Christian family and became disenchanted as i learned about science and history. though i call myself an agnostic when religious/potentially religious folk ask... in reality im just a clever animal haha


i wont argue about religion. when you challenge someone's beliefs they become hostile, if it's unnecessary don't do it.

BFP, as a human being, I have the power to chose never to be hostile. I can chose to have a civilized dialogue about religion. It is much more fun than having an argument about it.

You say that you are not religious and that you are an agnostic.

What does this mean?

To me, it sounds that you are much more than just a clever animal.

I AM RELIGIOUS
==============
When I say, "I am religious" here is what I mean to say: I mean that I am a human being. As such I have the power to choose to be a moral, ethical and loving person, under all circumstances. I am not just an animal, trapped in my instincts, or even a clever animal, governed by my training.

i tell people that im agnostic to avoid discrimination/judgment, although that hasn't been the case recently; i've started answering these questions with questions.

if someone is going to call themselves Christian or Hindi or Muslim or put any kind of religious label on themselves, you'd expect them to follow their teachings; yet that is rarely the case. are you a religious leader? well keep your followers in check and realize that fanatics repel newcomers rather than attract them.

Incidentally, there are many things that we, as human beings, do not know. Therefore, to this extent we are all agnostic. What I try to avoid is being a cynical and apathetic agnostic--one who says, "I don't know; don't want to know, and I don't care for those who do or don't."

Am I a religious leader? you ask.

Born in 1930, I retired from the pastoral ministry in 1994. My work was not just with church members. It involved community building and social work. I never demanded that people be devout Christians before they were offered help.

Now that I have retired, because I prefer to wear out and not just rust out, I do volunteer work in a non-sectarian charity--The Family Life Foundation, which I helped found in 1973, while I was still an active pastoral minister.

BTW, the FLF just took on a new program. It has to do with helping a young-adult couple, both of whom are enthusiastic people who are recovered addicts. They connect with troubled youth in schools and on the street and offer help. There are a lot of hurting people out there.
The FLF is connected with http://www.pathwayschurch.ca It is non-sectarian. Check out the online forum.

Rev asks--What is the "faith" of atheists?

Atheists have no "faith"- which I take to mean no belief in the love of god, the all-encompassing presence, the manifestation of the divine or indeed the strict adherence to dogma required in some religions. Atheists do not believe that there is a divine entity of any sort, however spelled.

I know you find this hard to comprehend Rev. You have asked this question before. I will repeat-- an atheist has no "faith".

Ellis, while I welcome, even enjoy, your "butting in" --it shows that you have a lively interest in dialogue--my recent dialogue is with BFP.

Because BFP is new to this thread my questions were to him, to get his thinking on things. For example, I found out that he is an agnostic.

Meanwhile, thanks for expanding your thoughts on atheism. While we are at it, let me ask a few questions.

You say,
I ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN THE SPIRIT OF DIALOGUE AND WITH RESPECT:

NO faith? Ellis, is this your personal dogma (teaching), your certainty?
Or, is there a pope of atheism who speaks for all atheists?
Is there only one denomination of atheism?
If atheist have no "faith" does this mean that they are certain of all things?
Do all atheists believe that human beings are simply clever animals?
Are we simply one of the accidents of evolution?
Do you feel it is possible for atheists, theists, unitheists, deists, agnostics, whatever to live in a kind of harmony?

Or do you take the position of Dawkins and Hitchins that all religion is evil and needs to eradicated?

Since atheists have NO faith, what is their dogma regarding good and evil, and life beyond the death of the body?

I am sure there are altruistic atheists, but if death is the end of all life, what would motivate an atheist to give his life to save the lives of others? I recently saw a movie, based on facts, about a man--an explosives expert who diffused a bomb on a train full of explosives. Following prayers, he risked his life to save the community.

BTW, over the years I have had at least three near-death experiences--one in Labrador (a storm on a lake)--which involved saving the lives of others.

Anyone. Feel free to butt in.

everyone rejects the integrity of some faith system(must i name some?), so likewise; to an extent; everyone is an atheist.

it seems that you're unhappy with the fact that i choose to ignore the playing grounds of atheism and theism. please understand that i've 'been there' im not a stranger to your ideology. i feel that arguing on matters on the basis of speculation, culture, social upbringing which neither understands is a waste of attention.

"Since atheists have NO faith, what is their dogma regarding good and evil, and life beyond the death of the body?"

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. [Albert Einstein]"

"what would motivate an atheist to give his life to save the lives of others?"

love, altruism, understanding, logic...

LOVE IS THE CENTRAL THEME OF THE GOSPELS
=========================================
In I John 4:8 we read, "GOD IS LOVE."
The same theme is repeated in Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34 and Luke 10: 25-28. This is followed by the parable of the Good Samaritan, the theme of which indicates that this Love is a universal kind of Love, not a parochial one. I am glad to see that at least one atheist agrees. Or is it agnostic?

Keep in mind: The Gospels commend people for their actions, not just what they say they believe--deeds are the real worth, not just creeds.

G'day,

I find this discussion fascinating. I don't quite see how being an atheist means a person has no faith. Since there is a great deal of systems for the universe that are not understood, to accept any system as possible or likely is to exercise faith.

I always thought the definition of an atheist is that they did not believe that there was a powerful conscious entity that somehow controlled their lives or the lives of man in general.

I thought Agnostic meant that the person considers that it is possible that there is a powerful conscious entity but that, if that entity did exist, it is so removed from their day-to-day life, that it was not relevant to them at all.

I am an atheist, I think. Nevertheless, I also have a strong sense of faith. I think that man is basically good rather than evil. That is a tenant of faith since it is not provable; at least to me it is not. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, King Richard the Lionheart, Saladin, etc managed to cause the deaths of tens of thousands to tens of millions of people and so logically evil seems to have the upper hand. Yet, it seems that such evil is on a grand scale.

Most primates use violence to keep the clan in line. The Banobo uses sex but this seems to be the exception. Gorillas can be quite violent and even commit murder. Chimpanzees seem to be extremely violent and murder, including infanticide is very common. Yet humans in tribal units seem to be much less violent. I read a study that suggested the "bully" impulse has slowly been removed from humans by the simple expedient of the females of human troops getting together and killing bullies.

It is only when you have interaction between different tribes that bloodshed seems to be more common and even then, it seems that various mechanisms have been developed to reduce the actual harm caused in such encounters.

There appears to be a genetic imperative to protect other humans. Firstly, there is a very strong imperative to protect one's offsprings, followed closely by those of your community. However, that does not really explain those that risk their lives sometimes to save enemies. A man that runs into a burning glider to rescue trapped soldiers of the opposite army suggests something else is at work here rather than just the protection of those we know.

I do not wish to big note myself at all but have rescued others in my life, very often total strangers, and sometimes people who were very unpleasant and had been abusive. Any fire fighter can provide similar stories. As a police officer called out to tragedies and the first attenders to fires, road accidents and such, rescuing others was just part of the job. You might argue that as an atheist the imperative there was that I needed to demonstrate to my fellow officers that I would do my duty however often I was alone.

I have met many people in my life who state clearly they are atheists yet take huge risks for themselves to attempt to save others in peril.

Some religious people argue that they are not atheists then but I believe that is a cop out. A way of saying that if you don't agree with me then you just are not being honest.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. [Albert Einstein]"

With that I agree completely but there is nothing to say that people are good because they either fear punishment or hope for a reward. That argument could be used for those that believe in a vengeful God along the lines of Allah or the Old Testament God. These people may only be being good because of the fear of their God. What an appalling reason for doing good works.

The reason I believe that people are basically good? I suffer terribly from a medical condition. My wife remains by my side regardless of the terrible conditions she must cope with. Strangers have gone out of their way to assist me when I have come to harm, their concern, clearly etched on their faces only for the wellbeing of others, not for some abstract notion of doing good to score brownie points with some deity. And finally, to the occasions when I do good, whether it be something very minor or something life altering. It makes me feel better, good even. Why? Not because I've read the Bible. I worry terribly about any literal interpretation of that book. It includes such appalling commands as to kill a child who is disobedient. Not because I've read the Koran. It directs the devout that they can never be friends with a Jew or a Christian and that's one of the tamer sections. Or other religious texts. Buddhism is often touted as the religion that preaches tolerance etc but by the concept of reincarnation it obliges people to be good or the consequences can be you will come back as a snail (I exaggerate to make the point).

It seems that humans separated themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom when they became self-aware. This seems to have happened about 70,000 years ago. At that time, there was no Allah, Jehovah, God, or whatever. If we say it is only from this point that humans became real humans it still means that religion such as the Christian religion has been around for only a tiny fraction of the time of humans. I've always been fascinated in the religious persons' perspective of what happens to those that just did not have a God to pray to, let alone Ten Commandments, the Songs of the Koran or whatever. These people would often have done extremely good works. We know that humans cared for other humans often for years even though they were not productive members of their society. There are skeletons of humans that would have been incapable of caring for themselves for as many as seven years before their deaths. There are a great many skeletons that show periods of two years or so. For a people that were lucky to live to 35 and where life was extremely harsh, such aid and comfort would only have been possible at great personal discomfort and suffering. Do these people not deserve a place in Heaven because they simply didn't know about it?

As far as I know, I have never helped anyone for personal reward. On the very rare occasion, my actions were recognised all it caused was acute embarrassment. Funnily enough, such feting of "good works" did not make me feel good at all. As an atheist that sort of suggests that I did not take the action because I feared punishment or a hope for reward.

As someone that is suffering a debilitating condition that has destroyed my ability to be employed, caused the loss of my house, meant that I cannot help my children or even play with them, I still haven't change to believe I automatically deserve special treatment. I will fight to receive benefits that my Government says is owing to those with disabilities and for their children but have never for a second thought to contact anyone that I may have helped in the past to ask for a handout. A couple of people that I did assist are actually very wealthy and so I guess I could have approached them. After all, what's a few hundred thousand to someone who has many millions? But I just don't have the ability to make such an approach. I don't even know why. I do know I would feel bad if I did such a thing and once a person on a site that dealt with medical problems which I was moderating sent me money to help out a problem I had. She was a very wealthy person and yet it caused acute embarrassment and it was only that the woman became very offended when I tried to return the money accusing me of denying her the right to help my family who she had grown to greatly care about over the years of our posts that I accepted the offer. I still feel guilt about it believe it or not.

From all of that I could suggest that an Atheist does not necessarily do something for fear of punishment or the desire for reward. I've been told by others in similar situations to me who do not have any religious faith that they have had similar feelings.

Therefore, my FAITH, as an atheist is that people are capable of great good, to those that are not family or even part of their community. That is not to say that people are not capable of great evil. The amount of rapes that occur in our so call-civilised society suggests that there is a lot wrong with a great many people.

As my life winds down towards its conclusion, all I can conclude is that love conquers all and: "In the end only kindness matters."

With Love to all that Believe in Kindness


Regards

Richard

Apparently this is an exclusive topic and I am redundant!

BFG- Good points! Fear is NOT a good foundation for a humane belief system.

And Richard, nice arguments. This is very true:-

"...... my FAITH, as an atheist is that people are capable of great good, to those that are not family or even part of their community."

I think kindness is often found where and when we least expect it. We experience the goodness in people much more often than the evil. As you imply, it helps if you assume people prefer to be nice,( in fact it actually makes them happy, few prefer to be mean). I really enjoyed that post. You and your wife are examples of what I was trying to say about kindness, support and love..

Now I'd better go away before Rev catches me posting!

Richard, as a unitheist, I write: you are my kind of atheist and I offer all the kind of kindness I can muster.

Ellis, you write, I presume your intention is to make a joke. Okay, I am amused.
Now, let us put our mind to the question: What can we as a community of posters do to be of practical help to people like Richard?--one of us. As one who believes that we are all ONE in the ONE, I BELIEVE that there is a solution.

Richard, how open are you to suggestions?