My the barbarians are out in force today - first Matt Ridley now this one.

Western "civilization" in 3 stark image

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel17.html

Each of these images is featured in The Pentagon of Power: The Myth of the Machine by Lewis Mumford.

Which to my mind is still one of the very best explanations as to what Western "civilization" is really about - namely the drive to gain power and control over every one and every thing.

My understanding of the CODEX is that it is an initiative sponsored and promoted by big PHARMA to severely limit or even ban altogether the use of relatively "natural" herbal remedies, vitamins and minerals, Chinese and Ayurvedic herbal remedies, and homeopathic pills too, etc etc.

As such this initiative is very anti-Gaia and an extension of the reductionist world-view as depicted in image number 17 in my first response.

It could even be said that it is related to laws that now exist or are about to be introduced in some States in the USA which will make it a CRIMINAL offense to criticize or try to curtail the activities of big-time Agri-business.

Words fail me. And that doesn't happen often.

"In 2009, at its Eighth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues requested special rapporteurs to prepare a Study on the need to recognise and respect the rights of Mother Earth. At its Ninth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will discuss the findings of the study, as well as works toward establishing a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth."

This is so pathetic, it wouldn't even work as satire.

But so long as there are committees with agendas and people drawing massive salaries to write this stuff, we'll be in danger of someone actually taking it seriously.

'...the rights of Mother Earth.'

Hmmmm... I can't quite believe that someone in the United Nations thought this up and put it out as a serious statement!

This Mother Earth concept was used in the caveman days wasn't it?

I would suggest that although I like the idea of a female all powerful deity, it is not wise to add yet another 'God' to our already ridiculously long list of religions.

Can't we look after the Earth without calling her our 'Mother'?

The United Nations is a talk-fest contradicted by the reality of human impacts that proceed apace despite the talk. Talk can do nothing stop it, no more than it can stop a boulder running down hill.
Contra the author's feeble assertion that "we are making changes, slowly and surely", the reality is that we only talk about it.
I don't see what's so objectionable, however, to the metaphoric language used in the resolution, and I see no indication of religious thinking despite the author's assertions. It's perfectly true that there is a "symbiotic connection between human beings and nature" that, if appreciated (and acted on), might foster "a mutually beneficial relationship" or symbiosis between us and the planet. We did in fact "evolve" here; nature developed us, just like the plants and the fishes. It is part of the hubris of rationalism to imagine that our intellects somehow transcend this (what if our reasoning was complete nonsense with no coherence outside our language games? Some philosophers think just that), or that our technologies transcend our biology. I don't believe they ever will, but in any case we're going to need a healthy planet to make the attempt.
Let's not forget too that the resolution is a distillation of very few words taken from extensive discussions. I think we all here know, or should know, the dangers inherent in concision. I don't think we should be too critical until we've read all the considerations.
I would accuse the author of inciting his own religion of arrogant rationalism.

THE "GREENING" OF "GOD"

Thanks Collin

"What every free-thinking individual and follower of any faith-based religion should object to is the real risk of ancient nature worship to become the new law of the land."

Hence the recent "greening" of God and traditional religion. In the competitive world of spirituality, Christian communities have been forced to embrace eco-theology to maintain their market share.

One consequence is that environmental activist and faith-based agendas have become almost indistinguishable. They both emphasise not only repentance and social justice, but also sustainability and greater “reconciliation” with Nature.

Log on to the Catholic Climate Covenant and you can take the St Francis Pledge to care for Creation and the poor online.

At the Anglican Church’s 13th Lambeth Conference in 1998, the Church declared the environment was the “key moral and religious issue of our time.” A national campaign, Sharing God’s Planet, was launched, together with an internal initiative to reduce energy usage, Shrinking the Footprint. By 2005 it had become a de facto environmental movement.

The faithful, however, have been warned not become too green. They must have a “correct understanding” of the right relationship between humankind and the environment. Eco-centrism and bio-centrism were unacceptable. The Church had “grave misgivings” about such notions, warned Pope Benedict XVI in his World Day of Peace message in January 2010.

“In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the “dignity” of all living creatures,” he said, they “end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in Nature alone, and understood in purely naturalistic terms.”

How, one wonders, did the citizens of Roman Catholic Bolivia (et al) reconcile the Pope's perspective with the new mantras to Mother Earth?

Alice (in Gaialand)

Let me get this straight, you think that the UN is trying to bring in a new world religion and is running an agenda towards this end supported by the Codex Alimentarius?

The Codex you describe as "the UN global strategy to manipulate and control agriculture, food and supplements".

Good luck with that. I'm sure a lot of people believe you.

Fools who have rejected Father God worship mother earth and all the debauchery that go with it. Talk about self righteous nonsense. And then the usual 'The answer lies in education and self-regulation of our own consumerism.' The world has never been more educated.

In the past, if God had a face, it would have gone red by what people did in His name.

Things have not changed that much, and so would Gaia feel deeply ashamed had she been aware of the coercion which people dare enact in Her name.

If we are all Her children, then so are also the "polluters", so are the ones who use up her energy, so are the ones who use her natural gifts and so are the ones who lean towards God's gift of science instead.

Just found a balanced approach in http://www.krishna.com/mother-earth-day , it says: "when we exploit the earth, plundering her resources for ungodly purposes, we become thieves", but who is to say which actions are godly and which are not? that's can only be determined in our heart of hearts, intimately between each one of us and God, certainly not by gross intervention by the law of the land.

Also nicely stated there: "Humanitarian relief efforts and charitable causes to "save the rain forest," for example, address only the symptom, not the cause of the problem" - the problem is greed and avarice. The law of the land can indeed reduce prosperity, but it has no power whatsoever in reducing greed and avarice: only faith in God can do that. We thank God for granting us access to His aspect of Gaia. It does not please God or Gaia if we use their name in vain.

"Also nicely stated there: "Humanitarian relief efforts and charitable causes to "save the rain forest," for example, address only the symptom, not the cause of the problem" - the problem is greed and avarice."

Oh here we go again - more religiosity.

The problem is public ownership of rainforests, and the unwillingness of those who claim the higher value of rainforest conservation. to put their money where their mouth is and *buy* them*.

To my mind the point at which an ideology becomes a religion is the point at which people start to get killed for it. Environmentalism passed that point long ago:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/01/maryland-police-respond-hostage-situation-man-gun-enters-building/

http://www.infowars.com/argentinian-couple-shoot-kids-kill-themselves-over-global-warming/

Suzeonline well put. It is not a difficult concept - protecting the environment and aiming for sustainability is really about human innovative capabilities and about survival - it is biologically ingrained. There is no need to call it Mother Earth or revert to pagan worship.

Innovation and ability to adapt is the key to human survival. Whether it be cavemen working out how to deal with marauding mammoths or foresight in planning for sustainable living,particularly when faced with new challenges of natural disaster or population growth.

Greed and avarice are ultimately not in the interests of the whole but man will inevitably work it out. Consumerism is not the panacea of human happiness or survival and indeed there is a new consciousness around those concepts. Sometimes enlightenment might need an impetus or a compelling event such as man-made disaster or exposure of widespread corruption, or dealing with the aftermath of war.

It is not akin to religion to suggest human wellbeing or survival is dependent on the interaction with the environment.

The environment is not supernatural it is there for all to experience and see. There is no faith based dogma only disagreements on how much the environment can withstand or the ways in which humans might adapt.

"The problem is public ownership of rainforests, and the unwillingness of those who claim the higher value of rainforest conservation. to put their money where their mouth is and *buy* them*."

Which is due to... you guessed, greed!

Pelican,

Whether or not the Earth will survive (a bit longer) is not anywhere as important compared with whether or not greed and avarice can be conquered.

A "religion" which places human wellbeing and survival in the fore is not a true religion. Such matters should indeed be left within the practicalities of secular and scientific endeavor, by those who take interest in that. Religion should focus on union with God, which happens to require among other things, the removal of obstacles such as greed and avarice. Caring for the environment may then be used at times as a religious technique to help overcome those obstacles, but not as a goal in itself.

Shocking that this is official UN policy.
But not that surprising.

This trend of establishing a globally enforced "correct perception/behaviour" has been going on for a while now.

It won't be too long before we see the Green-Progressive equivalent of witch-hunts and inquisitions.
After all, the "salvation" of the whole planet's at stake!

Yuyutsu
"Whether or not the Earth will survive (a bit longer) is not anywhere as important compared with whether or not greed and avarice can be conquered."

Well if the earth (or humankind) does not survive, whether or not there is greed or avarice will be a moot point (after the unlikely event). Sometimes the two are inextricably linked. Environmental plundering is often due to greed and avarice or at best ignorance and failure to identify risks. Many a third world country with little regulation or governance has experienced the worst of environmental disasters due to unrestricted mining licences.

From the little I can understand from the article, the author appears to be suggesting the UN is proposing the world adopt a universal religion of gaia or environmentalism, which is disingenuously presented as separate from an Indigenous context. I doubt that such a proposal in the way the author has presented it would be entertained seriously by the majority of UN nations let alone any other body or group of people.

Clearly there has to be a careful balance between human activity and protection of the environment on which we so rely. Nothing sinister in that no matter how special interests might spin it.

But the article was a bit gobbledygook as I saw it so perhaps there was some misinterpretation. It just seemed a bit like scaremongering or mischief making.

Hi all, wouldn't it be great if we had a spare planet up our sleeves. I mean, we could just go for it, and enjoy this short lived all we can eat excitement that our tiny brains thinks will go on for ever. 7 billion.A...Who would of ever thought. So....apparently with masterfulness as humans, we've come to the conclusion That time itself will run out for us, at our currant rate.....and No-one will deny the obvious, when confronting the human condition. Displaying our ignorance to the planet that gives us all life, well...;0 I think when a planet is being damaged to this extent, the youth will have just a waste land for their prosperity and effort. Environmentalists are, and have never called upon humanist/humans or earth-care people, like we need them to day. Religion waits for a God to come and fix or wipe up for mans mistakes, but this caveman non reality.....will just be a death sentence for us all. Its true, religion was our guides, and for some, it still is, but the facts are what they are, and no amount of praying will fix the damage. I could play with big words, but no-one listens:)

What happens with our system at 8 billion?

What happens with our system at 9 billion?

and so on....Cant you see! We will eat this planet alive! Iam I the only one that can see it?

I put a model here back in 2008....and it when like this....

If you put two rats in a box, they will breed with the room that their environment dictates. However, if you put ten rats in the same box, they will fight and kill for whats left, and thats what mankind is facing today.

Its your world, I just live on it.

Good luck.

LEA

I don't think some people on this thread understand the significance of the Earth Mother. In Australia, this is a very old tradition going back to the late seventies. In a brilliant article by Tony Swain, 'The Earth Mother Conspiracy', Journal of Religion (I think), about 1991, the author painstakingly traces all references to an Earth Mother here in Australia, all the anthropological and religious research going back well into the nineteenth century, and finds that the first reference to Her is in 1977, by an Aboriginal Christian leader.

One can easily see why such a myth would be adopted, if we think in simple, oppositional terms:

* Christians' male god - our Goddess

* God in the sky - Goddess in the earth

* God representing 'civilisation', modernity, technology, power, whites - goddess representing 'tradition', ancientness, 40,000 years of absolutely unchanging culture, living with nature, caring for country, reconciliation with powerlessness

* male power - female power (really ?! In Aboriginal communities ?!)

* Science and knowledge - ritual and belief

* Them - Us

* Day - night

The ancient tradition of Earth Mother worship goes back even further in the US - perhaps to almost 1970.

So please give this tradition the respect and awe that it deserves.

:)

Joe

Joe! can I borrow a club off you:) I see some primitive thoughts coming:)

LEAP

Oh and Joe! The world was made for all. Can you tell me, who's not welcome.

Lea

Exactly, QL ! The knowledge of the world belongs to everyone. The exclusiveness of most religions (and one its bogus alternatives, the extermination of all who refuse to follow the One True Religion, whatever it may be) are directly rebutted by the universalism of Science, the scientific method, available to everybody who makes the effort to understand it and its findings.

Knowledge and belief: how can one test whether a hypothesis or idea is genuine, falsifiable knowledge, or merely belief ? And if merely belief, why should anybody else give a toss ?

But by all means, give every crackpot notion and superstition the respect and reverence that it fully deserves. What a strange coincidence though, that so many religious beliefs - and cultural practices too, for that matter - justify the existing power structure and arrangement of social relations, the position of women, the power of older, wiser men, and so on.

Those venerable beliefs and practices should take their proper place, up there where the sun doesn't shine.

Science, QL, and knowledge and power should be available to everybody, not some exclusive, self-selected, group, and should be distributed as equally and fairly as possible, in secular, democratic societies which observe the rule of law and respect equal human rights.

Joe

Just joking. There are many issues thats not addressed.....Joe, and your right......When people are people, please:) let me know.

Over-valuational.

LEAP

I don't see what the big deal is in equating the earth with "mother

The earth nourishes us as a mother nourishes and nurtures her dependents. The language used is symbolism - and it's pertinent symbolism. The problem is its connotations to the New Age movement, but the author has simply couched his own theory in religious overtones - it has no bearing on the message from the UN.

Even if we're a species of self-serving and self-assured beings who have arrogantly and ideologically elevated ourelves above the biological reality of our condition, we can't deny the reality of our dependence on this biosphere and the simple fact that it sustains us.

Runner <"Fools who have rejected Father God worship mother earth and all the debauchery that go with it. Talk about self righteous nonsense."

Oh I don't know if the 'mother Earth' concept is so mad now, Pelican :)
Maybe we all deserve a break from the 'Father God' concept?

The world and it's environment doesn't seem in great shape since the male God apparently became more popular than the female one.

Maybe we should go back to worshiping a female God? :)

Suze,

"The world and its environment doesn't seem in great shape since the male God apparently became more popular than the female one."

Excellent point!

Yep, we sure took it seriously when God told us to subdue the earth and have dominion over all...although I don't think Genesis mentioned we should trash it as well.

Hi Suze,

Maybe you're onto something - maybe there are only two ways of viewing anything, one way OR the other. So if not a male sky-based God, appropriated by Western, modern, technologically sophisticated capitalism, then obviously the ONLY alternative is a female, earth-based goddess, to be appropriated by all good anti-capitalists, environmentalists, Indigenous people and women - and equally clearly, technology is one of their enemies.

So let's advise other people - who are on a journey that we cannot take, we're so modern - to return to the caves, the simple life, hunting, gathering, digging your garden (or at least get the wife to do it), and stay un-modern. Oh, how terrible it is that we can't live like this ourselves and oh how lucky, say, Indigenous people are to be able to stay out of modern society, living their simple lives, living off the land, at one with nature, caring for country, happy-nappy around the camp-fire, living off berries and lizards, listening raptly to their elders, treading lightly on the land.

Would that we could live in such simple, happy harmony with nature - but we have our rat-race, urban commitments, our houses to pay off, our investments to make and keep track of, our children to send to private schools. Oh, woe is us !

Pretty obvious, really ;)

Joe

You're probably right Loudmouth, it is way too late to switch allegiance now :)

So, maybe it would be better for our suffering world to have NO allegiance to ANY religion or God... male or female?

Let's just follow our own good sense, and see where that approach takes us...

Cheers,
Suze.

Oooo, Suze, you're in dangerous territory ! Are you suggesting that there are more than two ways to view any issue ? Good heavens, you're at risk of approaching reality.

Of course, on almost any issue, there are more than two, or three, or four or more alternatives, and all of them may be wrong. We don't have to choose just between (a) or (b). On some issues, there are almost infinite possibilities. We have to be able to critique every side to a (multi-sided) discussion, and it may turn out that none of the alternatives are worth a sparrow's fart of consideration.

In fact, every alternative would have weaknesses or defects, but some are far more glaring than those of other alternatives. It seems to me that choosing between one religious alternative or another religious alternative is a false dilemma - both are probably crap.

And what passes for an accepted, scientific rationale for some phenomenon may have its own weaknesses and I'm sur that Karl Popper would agree. No big deal. We keep searching, testing, modifying our hypotheses, testing again - these are methods of investigation that no religion can withstand.

So it is with the Earth Mother/Mother Earth superstition: a nice, sweet, seemingly harmless and pro-Indigenous and pro-woman superstition. Test it ? It's bullsh!t. Move on. Re-join the world.

Joe

Mmmmm...Suze, Poirot and Loudmouth
The thought of a nurturing loving Mother Earth does sound comforting, like being wrapped in a warm blanket. Earth worshipping has a lot going for it, at least there are not false idols rather a connection with nature. Makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary POV.

What is truth? (I've just finished watching The Oxford Murders and thought of this topic).

The fact is there are few absolutes. Truth is nebulous. Two quotes from the film's character Professor Arthur Seldom -

"There is no way of finding a single absolute truth, an irrefutable argument to help answer the questions of mankind. Philosophy therefore is dead. Because whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent."

"Since man is incapable of reconciling mind and matter, he tends to confer some sort of entity on ideas because he cannot bear the notion that the purely abstract only exists in our brain."

Interesting film that concentrates on mathematical purity, truth and philosophy.

I am not sure people are really interested in truth, people make decisions and then selectively associate with ideas that serve to support those decisions in an eternal self-fulfilling cycle.

People are not interested in truth only in what they think works best even if the premise is fantastical, unbelievable and unprovable. Religion works on that premise and maybe it has to otherwise it's truth will be exposed and that works against the fundamental idea of an out-of-human moral framework.

Since truth cannot always be known, truth is too scary a prospect we basically make stuff up to fill the void.

Pelican,

I agree that the article is a bit gobbledygook. As for the UN, what most likely happened was that the members were impressed by the politically-correct and photogenic proposal, failed to see the pitfalls, probably didn't even understand the English properly nor even cared to understand it and thus voted for it in order to look good. It's a mindless and toothless organization anyway.

Once (not "if") the Earth no longer survives, greed and avarice will also cease to be manifest, but so long as the Earth does survive, there is some order and function, including that religion should stick to its spiritual role and is not meant to be responsible for survival, for example, or for "fixing" the world. Survival and organism-centered well-being are best left to secular modalities such as science. Those in history who attempted to control the world in the name of religion only created a mess and gave religion a bad name (which is indeed reflected in many of the responses here).

Religion's sole purpose is to draw closer to God and ultimately unite with Him. As there are obstacles on this path, such as greed and avarice, religion therefore often includes techniques to overcome those obstacles. One of those techniques is to care for the environment, as caring for anything outside one's little "self" helps one to purge their selfishness. The environment is indeed quite likely to improve as a result, but that's not the aim of a true religion, that would only be a side-effect.

Yuyutsu
You make an excellent point about the positive spin off effects in combatting greed and avarice.

"The environment is indeed quite likely to improve as a result, but that's not the aim of a true religion, that would only be a side-effect."

Agreed, I am not seriously proposing that religion be about environmentalism only that it is often forgotten, and worse, mocked by some avid Christians (and others) who don't perceive God's creation as worthy of protection.

The UN is indeed a mindless and toothless organisation - a bit like a chicken dressed up in wolve's clothing.

Loudmouth <"So it is with the Earth Mother/Mother Earth superstition: a nice, sweet, seemingly harmless and pro-Indigenous and pro-woman superstition. Test it ? It's bullsh!t. Move on. Re-join the world."

Oh I don't know Loudmouth. Am I the only one here considering an age-old concept like Mother Earth?
No, you are joining in with the age-old manly concept of rejecting a subject because it is 'too feminine'!

Ever read Dan Brown's book 'The Da Vinci Code'?
I do think there is a lot to the 'Sacred Feminine' history :)

St Augustine thought that the idea of the "Great Mother" was "the" most formidable enemy of Christianity

In her book "Sexual Personae", Camille Paglia makes this observation:

"Human life began in flight and fear. Religion rose from the rituals of propitiation, spells to lull the punishing elements....Civilised man conceals from himself the extent of his subordination to nature. The Grandeur of culture, the consolation of religion absorb his attention and win his faith. But let nature shrug, and all is in ruin.....
Civilised life requires a state of illusion. The idea of the ultimate benevolence of nature and God is the most potent of man's survival instincts. Without it, culture would revert to fear and despair."

Western man is not particularly adept at self-regulation, despite his so-called educated status, and the U.N. appears to be attempting to advocate a legal framework to oversee and regulate human exploitation of the planet...however dubious are the motives of the powers that be.

The adoption of earth mother symbolism seems a deliberate ploy to romantise the notion in people's minds....although, there's nothing particularly religious about it - except that it threatens an alternative to the worship of a sky-God.
Religion is a device employed by man to transcend his earth-bound reality - in this instance an attempt is being made to bind him more tightly to his environmental responsibilities by the use of law.

Indeed, Poirot, much that passed as "religion" in the course of history had nothing to do with religion. Often all it is is merely culture.

Anything, be it primitive or sophisticated, that is fear-based or done with the intent of improving our worldly situation, is less than religion. It would be exaggerated to describe such normal human behaviour as an "enemy" (of religion) - it may better be described as a distraction.

However, one formidable enemy of religion is coercion, as it prevents us from expressing the goodness of our hearts. Spiritual progress is only made when one freely chooses to surrender to God, to serve God - and thereby others (since everyone and everything is an aspect of God, including the environment). When one is subject to coercion, then although one may outwardly perform exactly the same actions as they would anyway, if those actions are made out of fear of punishment rather than out of love for God (and therefore for His creation), then no spiritual merit accrues.

Whether God is referred to and adored as the "sky-God" or as "Mother-Earth" is just a cultural difference. Both are valid ways to focus man's limited attention on their own essential and inherent Godliness, on Love rather than fear.

The U.N. in this case cares not for the spirit, nor even for reminding people of their environmental responsibilities - it simply wishes to create certain results, and is mindless of using even coercion if that should bring about the desired results. In doing so, it renders itself as an enemy of God - as well as an enemy of Mother Earth.

Yuyutsu,

I'm inclined to agree that the U.N. is exploiting the idea of mother earth as a tool to further its influence and authority.

However, you said: "....one formidable enemy of religion is coercion."

I would disagree on an aspect of that assertion. And this is where "religion" - or more pointedly "institutionalised religion" parts company from pure spirituality.

Institutionalised religion is psychologically extremely coercive - as, indeed, are all social and cultural paradigms.

Legal coercion in a secular sense is also a persuasive and punitive system of coercion which provides societies with various methods of punishment delivered sharply and opportunely on a material level.

It seems that man always fashions for himself a system of coercion, either in his temporal and spiritual realms, or sometimes a blending of both.

The fact remains, however, that while we focus on our need for transcendent spirituality in our sky-Gods, we are simultaneously over-exploiting and debasing the planet that sustains us.

Perhaps if we understand that the earth is the realm from which we derive our spirituality - as Squeers said, "nature developed us"....that without it we cease to exist....then it doesn't really matter how you perceive it - as long as you care for it.

Poirot,

Well of course, being instituionalised does not guarantee any relation to the spirit. I was not even referring in my post to instituionalised so-called "religions". Yes, man is weak, and is likely to abuse his spirit under various pretexts.

I see no problem with the fact that we "debase the planet that sustains us" in itself, if not for the fact that in doing so we fail to respect God's gifts. From a secular point-of-view, that believes that we are just bodies, we might indeed die as a result, but then what's the big deal? Physical death, even of whole species and planets, has occurred in the past and will continue to occur in the future for each of us, for our species and for our planet: we must be careful not to elevate the tyranny of our genes, in their mechanical wish to replicate themselves forever, to a position of sanctity.

Nature did not develop us - it only developed and evolved our bodies (including our brains). Whence is this idea as if "the earth is the realm from which we derive our spirituality"? Indeed, taking the time to stay outdoors away from our busy urban lifestyle and just silently watch the natural elements, is a good meditative technique - that is probably where this notion has stemmed from, but all it means is that we develop our spirituality ON earth, rather than derive it FROM it.

Hi Pelican,

You put your finger right on it:

"The thought of a nurturing loving Mother Earth does sound comforting ...."

Indeed. But that doesn't make it 'true', any more than any other religious or superstitious belief. Maybe what we need are more 'discomforting' notions :)

I think Poirot might be onto something when she suggests that the notion of an Earth Mother/Mother Earth is being exploited and my worry is that it is being used in that way to con Indigenous people into excluding themselves from the rest of the world.

People can easily encapsulate themselves and deny the vast body of knowledge that has accrued over the past few thousand years across the rest of the world - from the Egyptians, the Chinese and Vietnamese, the Austronesians, the Greeks, the Indians, the Aztecs, the Middle East, Africa, the 'West' - everybody has been learning and sharing knowledge, perhaps unintentionally.

Whatever genuine, testable and tested knowledge Indigenous people have developed over fifty thousand years is also part of that body of world knowledge. They don't need religion or superstition any more than anybody else. They are part of the world, our world, their world. Anything which persuades them otherwise is doing them a tragic disservice.

Joe

Yuyutsu,

It all depends on one's belief or point of view.

You are guided everyday (as is everyone) by the subliminal patterns absorbed from the world around you in the natural world. It's not somewhere you "go" for meditation - it's always there - even when it's wrapped up in the deceptive trimmings of civilization.

Somewhere around the time of the Enlightenment, man separated spiritually from his practice of integrating sky-god and natural world as partners in sacred meaning.

The point of departure for Western man was his gravitation away from close proximity and consciousness of the earth. His migration toward an urban existence and away from the land heralded the formation of a chasm between the two sacred entities that had until then sustained him - one spiritual and one temporal......

So that now you are aghast if it is suggested that you derive your spirituality from the planet that sustains the whole of you, not just your material self.

"Once (not "if") the Earth no longer survives..."
The survival of the Earth is not in question. Humankind does not have the capability to destroy the planet; indeed it is debatable whether humankind could even achieve the extinction of all life on Earth.
What Humankind is capable of, is making our planet unliveable for Humankind.
Which action could only be described as bloody stupid.
Another line ('coincidentally' from the same author) I found rather objectionable was:
"From a secular point-of-view, that believes that we are just bodies, we might indeed die as a result, but then what's the big deal?"
I'm a secularist, and personally, I found the death of one of my children to be a very big deal.
This is what it's all about. It's not about "to elevate the tyranny of our genes", but about simple compassion; not only for our fellow humans, or even our children and grand children, but for all life on Earth.
If your religion or your spirituality or your life philosophy doesn't promote universal compassion above all else, then it's an empty thing indeed.
You don't have to be religious to love and honour your mother.

Grim:
"If your religion or your spirituality or your life philosophy doesn't promote universal compassion above all else, then it's an empty thing indeed".

Sadly I fear in most cases, Grim, that such universal values are observed in name only, attenuating as they extend beyond the extended family and halting abruptly at national borders, and at the border between humans and other species. In my experience it's more often than not the secularists and the much maligned greenies, rather than the institutionalised, who aspire to cross those borders.
The UN resolution is an idealistic step in the right direction, but unfortunately immaterial.

Yuyutsu,

As an atheist/secularist, I'm appalled by your dismissal of human beings as 'just bodies' - that may well be in your scheme of things, but don't impose that repugnant belief on others.

My wife had one life, liked all of us, only here on earth, and now she is gone and everybody who knew her grieves for her, and always will. She achieved so much in a relatively short life, and worked unstintingly for the Aboriginal cause, especially for students in higher education. We each get only one life, so it matters what we do with it, especially for the betterment of others, for our fellow human beings.

No, none of us is just a body, not even you, Yuytzu: we can all make a difference, in the short time we are here on earth. We each find our own purpose, and we fight our own fight.

And no, we never get over the loss of a dearly-loved one. We will never meet again, and we grieve constantly for that. Would that we could believe otherwise, that we could immerse ourselves in fantasies of heavens and gods and cute little fat-@rsed angels and/or 72 renewable virgins.

But atheists don't have that mental luxury: the truth may set your free, but it certainly can be bloody hard to bear.

Joe

Poirot,

Of course, God is neither in the Earth nor in the Sky. God has no location -most of use have overcome that primitive notion long ago. When you mention "a chasm between the two sacred entities that had until then sustained him", surely you did not mean to say that those supposed two entities formerly sustained mankind, but a few centuries ago they looked around and decided "Oh, man is now enlightened so we must not sustain him any more...". Our sustenance from God does not depend on our belief-system!

"Aghast" could only apply if I actually believed that it was possible -a physical entity (Earth) sustaining the non-physical (spiritual). I don't!

Further, if the earth did somehow sustain my spirituality, then what would happen to my spirit in that case once the earth is no longer, as it certainly would one day? and was I spiritually deprived before Earth was formed?

Yes Grim, the earth will one day cease to exist: in 4-5 billion years it will be swallowed by the sun, unless something else destroys is first, a nearby super-nova or collision with another star.

"You don't have to be religious to love and honour your mother"

Of course you don't need to belong to an established religious order, but if you love and honour your mother, than that's [part of] your religion already!

Compassion is wonderful, but informed compassion is even better than blind compassion. Our bodies will all die, sooner or later. Asking for someone's body to remain forever, even out of compassion, is unrealistic and can only result in unnecessary pain. Through realistic compassion we can only ask that nobody should suffer, that goal is sufficient and the sages tell us that it is ultimately achievable.

I understand your upset, Joe, but if all was only matter, then nothing would actually matter, because as science tells us, no matter will last forever. May I suggest that perhaps your atheism is merely due to a too-narrow concept of God. Perhaps if you broadened your IDEA of God, then you could also enjoy the same "luxury".

No, Yuyutzu, I find the very notion of gods repugnant. People are what matter, their one-and-only lives are precious no matter who they are. We are each born with no purpose, so we forge our purpose, whatever we will dedicate ourselves to, hopefully in conjunction with other equally mortal human beings, and ideally in our mutual service to each other. So hopefully we leave life having accomplished something positive for others, having improved the lives, the one-and-only lives, of others in some way. Other people are what matter, not gods.

But go on smugly believing that you have some sort of monopoly on peace and love and compassion, that you don't have any particular purpose nor any obligation to develop one. Dedicate yourself to yourself and your fantasy future and get out of the way.

Question: if there were no gods in your fantasy world, no heaven or hell, would you believe ?

I'll give you twenty minutes :) [Source: Schopenhauer]

Joe Lane

Dear Joe,

I was referring to God, not to gods. There aren't any gods in my world anyway and I am not preoccupied with heaven or hell either (didn't even cross my mind). I also have no monopoly on peace love and compassion.

The notion of people serving each other, which is commendable, is empty unless you can tell what they serve each other for. If man has no direction, then nor would the aggregate of mankind have any.

I am not trying to say that you are doing anything wrong, something which you should not, or fail to do something that you should - it is only that you lack the philosophical framework to explain and provide meaning to what you are already doing anyway.

Now if your notion of God is repugnant, then I suggest that you change that notion, wherever you got it from in the first place, because it does not serve you. Find yourself a different notion that will inspire you. God wouldn't care in the least - because God is not a notion.

Yuyutsu,

When I say "sky"- God, I'm using the sky as a symbol - meaning an entity that does not dwell in our material realm - but you already knew that - you're playing semantics.

"Oh man is now enlightened, so we must not sustain him any more...."

What's that supposed to mean? You twist my meaning or misunderstand it.

Of course the earth still sustains us. But man has drifted away from his innate connection with it...and that is not a debatable point. Over half the world's population now dwells in urban conglomerations.

Yes, I'm saying that "enlightened" man, who does not now depend on a hands-on relationship with the earth, has lost knowledge, respect and reverence for that which ultimately sustains him.

Poirot,

Sometimes, maybe usually, we can't see what we are in the midst of. We take what's around us for granted. So your statement that

"... "enlightened" man, who does not now depend on a hands-on relationship with the earth, has lost knowledge, respect and reverence for that which ultimately sustains him."

could be absolutely rubbish. Let's be honest here: the environmental ethic is amazingly contemporary. Setting aside national parks has occurred only in the last 150 years or so. Yes, Europeans have been re-planting forests for many centuries, but people didn't consciously think much about what human activity was doing to the environment before 1900, anywhere in the world.

It could well be that precisely because most of us now live in cities, we can stand back and understand what we have removed outrselves from, and what people have unwittingly done over the millenia - over-stocked and over-grazed hillsides, chopped down vast forests for firewood and building, for example, on every continent. We know that now - but it took people like Aldo Leopold and Carl Sauer to point it out.

And certainly not in areas occupied by hunter-gatherers: when you tread lightly on the earth, due to your extremely limited technology, it would not occur to anybody in a million years (well, in sixty thousand) that your firing practices, for example, were having a permanent impact on the nature of the environment.

In any case, kill all of the animals you like (or are able to, with very limited technologies of capture) and then just carry out a ceremony, and everything will come good, sooner or later. That's hardly an informed environmental ethic.

Joe

Joe, as usual, your in-sights are out-standing. However, this question has intrigued me.

"Question: if there were no gods in your fantasy world, no heaven or hell, would you believe ?

The human condition through evolving wonders from the separation from beast to man, the transition covering the journey, has made man the singularity species, from which no other's exist in the animal Kingdom.

Just the shear notion of our specialised condition, proms us just to think we are, by design. When coming back to your question.......Does me, myself, and I....qualify that for certainty,...well yes and will man be forever under this great umbrella of why............Iam absolutely positive, I think:) ( as far as my primitive brain will carry me:)

Mother earth. Its not a religion as such, well you can make it one I guess like all the rest. However, As like all other organisms that seemly enjoy harmony without our curse, I cant help but not thinking we are in an a evolutionary trap, from which our minds can not escape from. Now! If god were true, and we do end up in front of him, whats he going to say..........it was just a joke? I didn't mean to fool you? Iam sorry! Thats just the way I made the world and its creatures?

Mother earth is NOT a change from father in the sky....Earth is a visual experience. You can feel and love every part of it, like where it used to come from, before the transition. You can embrace in ore, at its complexities without invention.

And last but not least.......can anyone think of a better belief, than the one that gives you life? If all peoples around the world believed as much as they cared for old Gods that only gives emotional security, I bet the world today, wouldn't be in such a mess.

LEAP

Considering this discussion is about UN principles concerning Humankind's treatment of the planet, introducing the eventual extinction of the Earth in 4 or 5 billion years is a nonsense argument; no more than a red herring. Humankind's environmental activities today can have absolutely no impact on that eventual extinction.
Loving and honouring your mother has nothing to do with religion, even in part, after all:
"Religion's sole purpose is to draw closer to God and ultimately unite with Him."
Children raised in an entirely secular manner without even a concept of god would still love and honour their parents.
"Compassion is wonderful, but informed compassion is even better than blind compassion."
Is it? Says who? This is one of those 'rational' statements, which -relying on the axiomatic superiority of 'rationality' over 'irrationality' sounds irrefutable; yet when teased apart actually says nothing. The word compassion is defined as:
"a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering." That's all.
For someone who appears to hold religion in high regard, you (Yuyutsu) seem to have utterly missed the (traditional) point of religion.
Doing good for others was never about the welfare of the 'others' so much as improving your own soul. All the rules laid down by most religions are about self improvement. Doing the right thing makes you a better person. The societal effects are secondary (and inevitable, if enough people adopt the same philosophy).
Jesus merely sweetened the pot by offering eternal life to those who most successfully improved the condition of their souls.
The most radical aspect of Jesus' philosophy was to extend compassion even to one's enemies, as the only way to end the cycle of retribution. In this, the putative Jesus was clearly more than 2000 years ahead of his time, as we still have so called Christians fighting wars in the name of their God.

I'll give you an example of compassion that is uninformed, Grim:

You see an old lady standing at the edge of the footpath next to a road with heavy traffic, so you take her arm, stop the cars and lead her safely to other side... only to find out that she was heading towards the pharmacy on the original side of the road.

You are right that 'rationality' is a secular criteria. I prefer wisdom. Compassion that comes hand-in-hand with wisdom is superior than compassion on its own. Doing good for others is indeed for the welfare of one's own soul, but you should better check first, whenever you can, that the action is indeed good for others.

My statement about the extinction of the Earth in 4-5 billion years was not related to the UN and their environmental quest. It only intended to defend my earlier reply to Pelican to which you objected in a way that was already then out our (me and Pelican's) context.

Yes, Jesus said to love one's enemies - and he was right, but that doesn't mean that you don't fight them if they keep attacking your family. You love them, yet you pull the trigger, you never stop loving them but you do your duty anyway (if that's indeed what God calls you to do).

"Children raised in an entirely secular manner without even a concept of god would still love and honour their parents."

-Certainly so, and that would be part of their religion: it would draw them closer to God, irrespective of whether they believe in Him or not.

Poirot,

I agree with what you just wrote, I just cannot see how possibly the Earth, a physical thing which sustains our physical bodies, can also sustain our spirit, which is non-physical.

Yuyutsu,

Just imagine for a moment that a human child appears out of the blue. He is kept alive but sealed away from his environment and his fellow humans.

What would his spiritual quality amount to under those circumstances? After all, he is still human. In your opinion his earthly physicality is no more than a vessel containing his spirit.
You appear to believe his spirit exists as an independent entity, one that isn't touched and enlivened by interaction with environment and fellow beings.

I don't agree.

A world religion that is based upon laws and punishments of the state is not a religion but a secular law. A religion must have freedom of belief or denial. A religion that is enforced by the State will breed contempt for the rule of the State. This then is not a democratic State.

'I just cannot see how possibly the Earth, a physical thing which sustains our physical bodies, can also sustain our spirit, which is non-physical.'Yuyutsu...

I can explain...and refer to first page of article extract of 'Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth'...

Its actually very sound expansion from basic of facts...and quite enlightened...

Its 'energy' and Earth runs on energy in an extremely complex interaction form between all that live and exists within it, without which all comes to dead still...

best example to see bigger picture is a self_sustaining fish tank...all life within it survives living off each other, the biggest of fish to smallest of microbes, each as important as other...no human intervention.Thnk about it. At its fundamental is energy 'use' and 'transfer'...so energy of algae(plant) eaten by catfish becomes 'useable' by the fish to swim looking for more algae...now expand this to every level within tank...so see the energy 'cycle'...now put the tank in a deep freeze...see...but energy remains which never dies...now apply to earth...

And to 'spirit' by Yuyutsu...arises from question we all must ask...at moment of death is it;
1. All black forever like gone to sleep and never awaken...
2. Or awareness continues its journey into the afterlife...
No other reasonable options Im afraid...and we ALL are going to be at the death moment, which absolute certainty...

so 'spirit' are those whom select 2...so are actually saying 'intelligent pure energy' exists within them right now that never 'dies'...but energy nonetheless...which also called 'soul' and where all religions of earth evolved to address, and to me dismally failed todate...

And people selecting 1&2 have to accept the reason they 'exist' is 'energy'...but UN taking this up sends alarm bell clanking...there is undercurrent that links this to some form of 'law' that enables more 'monitoring and control' of population, divided into 'controller(ruler) and controlled(enslaved)'...so watch out...

sam

With all due respect Yuyutsu, the example you offer is not of compassion, but rather of ill advised and unwarranted action.
An example of compassion would be a person seeing the old lady and thinking to themselves: "look at that poor old lady. I would very much like to help her. I wonder what she needs?"
Compassion is a feeling, nothing more. In this, it is like the gun that doesn't kill people, but the person who pulls the trigger.
I consider your attitude to allegedly 'loving' your enemies even as you pull the trigger to be equally ill considered. Defence is not retribution. The thrust of Jesus' argument was to stop the cycle of violence by 'forgiving those who trespass against us'. Witness the state of the 'Godfearing' USA, on heightened alert against reprisals by Al Qaeda, for the reprisal against Bin Laden, for reprisals against Arab nations and Muslims...
As to your final comment about coming closer to God, this obviously involves 2 assumptions.
1, God exists, whether anyone believes in It or not;
2, Despite being (presumably) infinitely greater than yourself, you understand It and It's motives and desires perfectly.
How remarkably clever of you.

>> I'll give you an example of compassion that is uninformed, Grim:

You see an old lady standing at the edge of the footpath next to a road with heavy traffic, so you take her arm, stop the cars and lead her safely to other side... only to find out that she was heading towards the pharmacy on the original side of the road.<<

Not so much "uninformed" Yuyutsu, so much as ignorant. When I see someone I think may need help I ask how I can help first..... this saves dragging a protesting little old lady across a road she doesn't want to cross.

Now can you provide a clearer hypothetical, rather than a bit of fantasy devised to support your argument?

I think you have been watching too much of the USA 'Dumb and Dumber' movies and thinking they were about real life.

And what Grim said as well. I think you are trying to suggest that non religious people cannot either be wise or compassionate. That is very contemptuous of your fellow humans.

Grim,

Perhaps you're right - after 9/11, if the US had passed on the message to bin Laden that, as Christians, they wouldn't pursue him or any al Qaida operatives, no matter what they did, since after all they believed in forgiveness, it's pretty obvious really that bin Laden would have immediately ceased any further actions against them. Yeah, that's what they should have done, it would have saved so many lives. The fact that they didn't shows that the US is a bloody-thirsty, war-mongering, revenge-seeking, hyphenated evil power.

Bin Laden might have been responsible - because of the US - for a million lives, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he and al Qaida and the US might have taken it for granted that they were all at war, but the Yanks shouldn't have sent in soldiers to execute him for those crimes, they should have sent in lawyers and social workers and nurses, to persuade him to attend an ICC court in The Hague or somewhere. American b@stards !

Yeah, right :)

God, I love bullsh!t arguments, they brighten my day ! Thanks, Grim.

Joe

Loudmouth,

Talking of bullsh!t....
Remember Bush once said that the hardest part of his job was to connect Iraq to the War on Terror - nice slip up that, straight from the horses mouth.

How many people has the U.S. slaughtered in the course of its retributive escapades?

And whose responsibility is that?

Thank you Sam, I appreciate your article and attempt.

I'm not sure whether by "energy" you refer to the common scientific notion which can be physically measured (E=mc2); or to some totally different notion (such as that commonly referred to in New-Age circles).

At the moment of death, all that happens is that we lose contact with the physical world (including its physical energy), so it's essentially back to the way we were before we were born. Whether it's then "all black" or "journey", well sorry I cannot tell, I simply don't remember since my memories are stored in my brain, which I had none at the time (if one can even speak of "time" in that situation).

Poirot, you assume correctly, so then we agree to disagree.

Grim, an attitude of "Godfearing" is not necessarily religious. How can one expect to unite with God if they fear Him instead of love Him?

Your assumptions as if I believe that "1. God exists; 2. God is greater than myself; 3. God has motives and desires" are incorrect. I have previously explained my faith in detail in this forum, but currently the word-limit would not allow it. In just one sentence - THERE IS NOTHING BUT GOD!

Your idea to "stop the cycle of violence" is yours, not Jesus'. While it's too late to ask him now, I believe that Jesus said 'love thine enemy' because he could see God even in an enemy and a trespasser, not in order to achieve some result. At times that approach may work and violence will cease, at other times it won't, but it doesn't matter since even while we must shoot an enemy we can still perceive the divine in them.

Ammonite, I didn't mention dragging. The lady just stared ahead at the road, said nothing and crossed willingly.

"non religious people cannot either be wise or compassionate"

-Perhaps, but I never met anyone who is non-religious: we all come to God at our own pace. Neither concepts nor membership of a religious order are necessary. Everyone is capable of wisdom and compassion.

Hi Poirot,

You were asking, " ... How many people has the U.S. slaughtered in the course of its retributive escapades?

"And whose responsibility is that?"

That's a very good question. Let's see - how can we know how many people have been killed in Iraq by the following entities ?

* the US military

* the US private contractors

* SCIRI and the Badr Brigade

* Moqtada al-Sadr and his army

* al-Qaida

* remnants of the Ba'athist Party

* criminal gangs

* various other Shi'ite, Sunni, Kurdish, etc. groups

There have been a lot of players on the Iraqi stage, Poirot.

Joe

Hey Joe, whether the USA's actions were defensible or not in themselves is immaterial; the part I find objectionable and pertinent to this discussion is that those actions were taken in the name of the Christian God. You remember, the God who gave us such memorable sound bytes as "thou shalt not kill" and "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us", and "turn the other cheek", and "love your enemy as you love yourself"... Remember Dubya was and is a God fear... oops, I mean a God loving Christian, who reckoned God told him to invade Iraq.
Do you honestly believe the actions of the USA in recent years has lessened the hatred between nations?
Yuyutsu... sigh... So now you reckon love of one's parents is religious, but being 'God fearing' (to coin a phrase that has been in existence long before Jesus was a twinkle in...?) is not religious?
Oh please.
If you're going to base your arguments on your own pet definitions of words already listed in standard dictionaries, perhaps you could share those definitions with us first; or at least explain what is so wrong with the dictionary definitions?

Yuyutsu wrote"I'm not sure whether by "energy" you refer to the common scientific notion which can be physically measured (E=mc2); or to some totally different notion (such as that commonly referred to in New-Age circles)."

Yes and yes...its the same energy...so the energy in the atomic blast over Hiroshima(Einsteins e=mc2 was the focus to science that led to creating atomic bomb) is the same in the food you are going to eat for dinner, and extract energy from it to use in your activities tomorrow...

I think the question you are interested in is..."can energy exist purely as an intelligent entity(aka god and soul)...ie not part of any matter...

and since you speak of god in your posts...it would seem your answer is yes...

hope my previous post now makes more sense...

sam

Dear Sam,

Although energy is a bit subtler than "solid" matter, as Einstein showed us, they are still interchangeable, so I still place energy in the "physical" basket. Our bodies and the food that we eat and what we expend while active, would also be in the same category - they are all interchangeable.

On the other hand, WE - you and me (which you call "soul"), God and consciousness, cannot be interchanged with energy or with matter. We are non-physical.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it: computers for example can also be intelligent - they may be able to deal very efficiently with the physical world, but they are not alive, they are not conscious. We, on the other hand are: we may not be intelligent at times (especially if our brain is dead or damaged), but it does not make us any less alive, it only makes us less able to deal with the physical world.

Grim,

Religion comes from Latin "Re-Ligiere", or re-connect [with God]. It is interesting to note that the word "Yoga" also comes from the root "to yoke" - to connect oneself with God.

So when I mention "religion" I quite simply mean "any method that helps one to re-connect to God, come closer to Him and ultimately unite with Him".

Loving one's parents is a step in the right direction of connecting with God, hence I consider it part of religion. Fearing God, on the other hand, places a barrier between oneself and God, hence it is not a healthy religion.

Yuyutsu wrote;
"Although energy is a bit subtler than "solid" matter, as Einstein showed us, they are still interchangeable, so I still place energy in the "physical" basket. Our bodies and the food that we eat and what we expend while active, would also be in the same category - they are all interchangeable."
"WE - you and me (which you call "soul"), God and consciousness, cannot be interchanged with energy or with matter. We are non-physical."

Well...thats what YOU believe, but I dont follow your 'reason and logic'...so for this debate to continue it would need that...on why you conclude that there is two definite and non_interchangeable existence of energy, one that is associated with matter, and the other that is associated with our spiritual aspect...

sam
Ps~taking Eisteins equation for example...e=mc2, the c2 is a constant, so only variables are e and m, meaning energy and mass are interchangeable...Think thats where you essentially got your conclusion on matter and energy...but 'e' is 'e', no subset of e is available in the equation, same to 'm', which goes against your second statement above...and did you know just pure energy existing by itself has a weight...yeah, suns rays on its way to earth has a mass...

So basically what Yuyutsu agrees with or likes is 'religious', and anything Yuyutsu doesn't agree with or likes, is 'not religious'.
It appears we have a new Muhammad in our midst. Hallelujah.
For those who suffer a certain scepticism concerning religion you may enjoy an email forwarded to me recently:
http://thecomensality.com/avasay/biblical-contrasts/feed

We are posting ideas, attitudes and aspects of our character on this site. Are they real? is there a transferrence of energy that can be measured from the writer to the reader? Ideas, attitudes and character is a spiritual dimension our output and responses can be measures as an individual; but the idea, attitude or character quality of itself cannot be measured, only its emotional or physical responses or reactions.

Yuyutsu,

You have me also a little intrigued.....

If you hold up God and consciousness as being in the spiritual realm and yet relegate intelligence to that of the physical, I'd probably have to ask how you define consciousness?

You also highlighted the fact we are "alive" which is a physical distinction.

When a human baby is born, they have no concept of the "other"- they remain in a womb-like state at first....they are "everything" and everything is them - there is no separateness. Slowly they begin to recognise that in their physical world things are distinct from themselves - and through language they are indoctrinated into the symbolic order. Intelligence flows from this, and could consciousness be present without this process first taking place? Could any of it happen at all if not for their immersion in the physical world?

Some think the search for God is a yearning to return to a state where there is no "other".

Yuyutsu

So the story you told about the little old lady wasn't just made to fit in with your ideas about wisdom and compassion?

I fully concur that the UN, the USA, Britain Australia, Russia, China, the evangelistic religions: Christianity, Islam and many other countries/organisations have been trying to enforce their ideals, on those they have deemed need help, whether they have asked for it or not.

Which brings me to the question I simply must ask you; after having led the Little Old Lady across the road - when did you discover that was not her desired destination and how did she inform you?

I'm hoping she bashed you over the head with her hand-bag.

Wisdom would require that you be sure that you are actually providing aid. Instead you exhibited the "I know what is good for you" behaviour of any individual or collective that assumes superiority over others.

Dear Sam,

There are no two types of energy (science, at least, has not discovered any so far). Energy is physical and WE are not an energy. Energy as you stated has a weight, we don't.

Dear Poirot,

Indeed, there IS no other, all there is is God.

Consciousness is so obvious that I can't find adequate words to describe it, it's a bit like your nose, which you cannot normally see because it is so close to your eyes. Being alive is inherent in what you are and should not be mixed-up with the physical life of the body. Indeed, in order to be conscious of the world, the process of differentiation is necessary, but not for being conscious of Truth, of our essence, of God".

While I find my own words crude on this topic, Jesus has already succinctly answered your questions better than I could: "Unless you become like little children, you cannot know the meaning of Life, for your minds must be cleared of the falsehoods of this realm if you are to be taught Eternal Truth."

Dear Ammonite,

I think I made it quite clear earlier on this thread that enforcing one's ideals on others is not on. Let those who have ears hear...

Finally Grim,

"It appears we have a new Muhammad in our midst."

-Thanks for the compliment, except that I won't receive any money, power or sex from the fact that you love and honour your parents. In fact, I won't even be told whether you do.

While I find my own words crude on this topic, Jesus has already succinctly answered your questions better than I could: "Unless you become like little children, you cannot know the meaning of Life, for your minds must be cleared of the falsehoods of this realm if you are to be taught Eternal Truth."......What! having a catholic priest putting his hand up my shorts, lol, I don't think that type of Eternal Truth is what Iam looking for:) But jokes A-side, The old religions or new, have Nothing to do with truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg&feature=related

If religion is your type of truth, Knock yourselves out:)

Peace and all that jazz.

LEAP

*GROAN*

The point of this article was simple: the wording of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, if adopted by the world's nations, will have the effect of elevating all of nature into a legally protected domain from which many new laws and regulations will be used to restrict and control our lives to the point of of our incredulousness.

As a metaphor, 'Mother Nature' is a beautiful thing that certainly deserves our respect and care, but as a recognised legal entity it is frought with great risks to the freedoms and rights of individuals and societies.

All this poppycock drivel about 'life energy' and the true nature of gods/godesses or the existence of some fantastical 'human soul' is merely further anecdotal evidence that anti-scientific religiosity is rampant in the minds of the ever expanding collective ignorance.

I support the tenet of freedom of religion, but only if that also justly includes freedom FROM religion.

"I support the tenet of freedom of religion, but only if that also justly includes freedom FROM religion........ Collin Mullane, you of course have every right to say so....I think:)

The United Nations are looking at the future forecasts of human development and the Human-rights lobby are backing the thoughts
in relation to evidence produced by independent analysis on the
effects of what religion is having, with some/area/people in the 21 century.

The question I ask..........is it time to play down religions universal calls, that it claims to have on all.

Last time I checked, I was born as free as you were.

LEA

QuantumLeap,

Nobody forces you to be religious in the 21st century other than your inherent and innermost loving nature.

(in fact, nobody could ever force anyone to be religious: we know of course that people through the ages were forced to follow certain rituals and external acts, or to declare allegiance to certain religious orders - I strongly condemn all that, but none of it could actually make anyone religious against their will, it could at most turn people into actors)

If you truly want to be free from religion, then you have some hard work ahead:

You will, for example, need to stop loving your parents. You will in fact need to stop loving anyone, and hate everyone instead. You will need to banish any sign of goodness and become a mocking clown like the guy in your URL, you will indeed need to become a demon lest a glimpse of God's light penetrate through your defenses. Anything short of that might draw you closer to God, or in other words make you religious - which you seem to abhor.

No matter how hard you try and how much pain and suffering you inflict in the short term on yourself and others, in the end God will win.

Goodness is stronger than evil;
love is stronger than hate;
light is stronger than darkness;
life is stronger than death;
Victory is ours through God who loves us.

- Desmond Tutu

Yuyutsu.

I could verbally hack you to pieces for that ridiculous groupings of rubbish, however.....religion did teach man to love in its own way. See, not all are the blood thirsty war-lords my friend, and some religions were found be the bloodiest. The teachings of love, is a patent of nature its selves and some religions have capitalized on this, and now the real evil, are the big one's that run it.....not the little guys:)

See! the little guys I support, the more love in this world would be commended not demoted or ex-spelled. " and Iam trying as I've wrote years ago to tell people like yourselves, " The Bible was the first type of law and order that stopped humankind from being and continuing to be a savage beast." and further more.....it moved mankind ahead so rapidly in evolutionary terms, with out it......I think war and warriors would be still the norm.

Again! If all religions were a substance of love.....I think you would hear a pin drop from the other side of the world.

But we dont do we:)

LEA

Lea,

I am so glad you spared my life!

"Religion" is spelled: R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N, no "S" in the end.
Like "water" and "air", if you attempt to make it plural it comes to change its meaning.

Religion is not a product of culture, it is not a product of historical development, it is not subject to change, it even pre-dates the bible, it even pre-dates mankind - it is in fact born with the universe, hand-in-hand.

Historically, various religious orders were created in order to interpret religion and apply it as best they can to current conditions and circumstances. Some were more successful than others while others did abysmally.

Sadly, it is the nature of even the best religious teachings to degenerate over time and lose their original spirit. Jesus for example came and found that Judaism has lost contact with God and degenerated into petty technical rituals and ethnic/class prejudice. He then revived its spirit as best as he could, at a great personal expense as we all know, but then I don't need to tell you what horrible acts were made 1000 years later in the name of Christianity. Buddha also admitted that in 500 years his teachings will degenerate to the extent that his followers could no longer become enlightened.

Fortunately, the way to God is never blocked for those who sincerely want Him. One need not call it "religion", it is not even required to have an intellectual concept of God, or one could use different concepts just the same. The reality is God, there is no other reality and we all are heading there, each in their own pace.

"But, that is NOT the point. What I object to is the use of pantheistic and Gaia inspired language that, if adopted on an international level in a legal treaty, will have the effect of making ‘Mother Earth’ the new deity of a green-religion forced onto all of Earth's citizens."

Well.... Isn't that just a two way street above, however modern religions keep telling us how we end up is Gods will.....well I beg the differ.....at 7 billion......how long do you think we can wait for GOD?

Now peoples:) Some say Iam the one thats tipped the scales for this type of thinkings, and your right:) For five years I've been calling for all peoples around the world to have a good look at your planet, go on...have a good look at what hamkind is doing.

Mother earth is correctly stated as it presents its selves to us by definition.

It does give and support life! and its the only one we have.

The reality for the 7 billion human inhabitants of Earth is that something needs to change; to continue on a destructive path is certainly unsustainable. But the answer is not to anthropomorphise the environment, to give rise to a crass spirituality or empower the most weirdly radical movement of the modern era. Nor is it to throw the human race into an era of reliance upon heavily regulated food production by profit-driven corporations reminiscent of the science fiction classic, Soylent Green.

The answer lies in education and self-regulation of our own consumerism. We may not be doing enough in a timely manner, but we are making changes, slowly and surely.

Collin Mullane......making changes, slowly but surely........I dont know how your reading our time scale, but I can show with links details of how quickly we are and you.....are eating this planet alive.

Soon 8 billion then nine billion and so on.

I call for balance, not a one sided affair concerning what we believe.

You have only conducted.....and not provided solutions.

Good luck.

LEAP

Collin,

I agree, but religiosity need not be anti-scientific:

Science is there to tell WHAT is in this world and HOW it works.
It does not even attempt to answer the questions of WHO and WHY.

Science seeks to understand - religion seeks to be.

Science and religion can therefore live peacefully side by side.

Yuyutsu. Its come to the attention of the many, that religion has served its purpose well, no-one denies that point, however your quote of Buddha said "with-in 500 years his teachings will be gone" thats incorrect and what the people of this earth choose to believe in, will be their choice. Many religions have come and gone, so why is yours or Buddha's any different?

I am going to point out that religion has to change in order to survive in 21 century, and these links will show why.

http://www.youtube.com/user/PINASISM6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB-vknOyNIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SJc8yhHkZE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqy1WDdcxvo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhwpitHgG-k

Lets let the people decide.

LEA

Lea,

"Many religions have come and gone"

As I just explained, "religions" is NOT the plural of "religion". Religious orders and teachings come and go - religion stays.

Religion does not change or needs to change, as it already teaches kindness and good-will:

Glory to God in the Highest,
and peace on earth,
good will towards men.

[Luke 2:14]

The application of good will and peace obviously changes according to circumstances.

Regarding Buddha, I did not understand whether you are disputing that he said what he said (that in 500 years his teachings will deteriorate) or that his words actually came to pass (and thus it is still possible today to become enlightened based on his teachings).

Regarding the movies you presented, even when they present valid points (such as the need to reduce earth's population), I generally find them violent and unworthy of spending my monthly download-quota on. I do not agree with this new-age nonsense as if we are "energy", nor to the unfounded idea as if we are into a new-age in the first place. I certainly do not agree with the idea of coercion and destroying others on the grounds that they are "cancer" (in your eyes).

Whether or not we survive in 21st century is a secular concern. Survival has its value of course, but not at any cost. Life without God is better not lived.

In my youth I used to think a one-world religion would ensure peace on earth and goodwill to all men. No division, persecutions in the name of religion or worse, deaths at the hands of fanatics of any variety.

However human beings would find division, maybe it comes from our anthropological tribal roots (genetics?). Whether it be class, money, race/ethnicity, or religious differences human beings tend to group themselves by one or more common factors.

Even Christians, Muslims and Buddhists who probably make up the largest groups find divisions among themselves. There appears no cohesive force to bind or heal those divisions. Much of it is about power relationships.

Yuyutsu
"Life without God is better not lived."
That is a big statement and a bit sad. What if life without God worked for you. What if people continued to make decisions just as they do now on the basis of doing good without the need for a supernatural force to legitimise that goal? (Albeit acknowledging that human societies will never be perfect)

The difference between those who believe and those who don't seem to my simple interpretation be less about the existence of God (or proof vs faith) but the idea of a legitimate higher being to ensure that force for good be realised.

Yuyutsu said in this very sane statement.

"Whether or not we survive in 21st century is a secular concern. Survival has its value of course, but not at any cost. Life without God is better not lived."

And with that above Pelican, I rest my case:)

The word is certifiable in the second definitional meaning of catatonic.

Iam now for sure going to church:0

All the best.

LEAP

Oh Pelican,

For some indeed, life can be tolerable without a concept of God or without believing in that concept; and it is certainly not necessary to think of God as a supernatural force (which He isn't) or even that He exists (which He does not). Indeed, people can be sustained, inspired and kept on the good path merely by their experience of God even when it comes without any intellectual/philosophical/theoretical understanding. I would personally find life dull, meaningless and distressing without the awareness of God - I would have had nothing to hope for, I wouldn't have wanted to live, but perhaps I still could, for a while, it would make no difference anyway.

It is God, the reality of God, not the thought of God, which life is impossible without. In fact, how could life (or anything else for that matter) be possible or even conceived of without God, since there is nothing else but God!

Yuyutsu
Well I respect your views even though we differ on what gives life meaning. Much of these concepts are influenced by how one defines God and from my many dealings with people of different faiths, it does seem to vary from person to person. Some internalise the idea of spirit as that connection between human beings and others sit more towards the higher power (other than human), moral framework or the idea of a fatherly figure.

Many people find that spirit connection with other people, their families, children and the wonders of the environment around them. Or they don't worry about those things and find giving to others provides a meaning.

I believe many people weave meaning to their lives in various ways and if your way is through God that is equally as valid.

But Pelican, Yuyutsu is not "weaving" a belief system, he is telling us how it is. Yuyutsu propounds ex cathedra from a perspective of certainty, and that's what I find objectionable. People may confect whatever beliefs they like so far as I'm concerned--though I do wish they'd critique them honestly--but when they claim to "know" about God etc., and intricate detail, I balk. The only thing I "know" is that while I have my conjectures, I'm profoundly ignorant of the meaning of the universe etc.
It could be that individuals like Yuyutsu are more advanced than the rest of us and possessed of esoteric knowledge denied us, but if so they should be able to impart this knowledge cogently, explaining the many inconsistencies that accumulate. Since there's none of that, I impute such "knowledge" to inflated, indeed hyperbolic, conceptions of self.
"nothing is certain except that nothing is certain, and that there is nothing more wretched nor more arrogant than Man".

I should have added that I find people who claim to "know" not merely objectionable, but potentially divisive and dangerous, since their certainty puts them in a position to judge. I cleave to my ignorance.

Yuyutsu,

When you write,

"I would personally find life dull, meaningless and distressing without the awareness of God - I would have had nothing to hope for, I wouldn't have wanted to live, but perhaps I still could, for a while, it would make no difference anyway.

"It is God, the reality of God, not the thought of God, which life is impossible without. In fact, how could life (or anything else for that matter) be possible or even conceived of without God, since there is nothing else but God!"

I have to say as an atheist and humanist that I feel very sorry for you. "Nothing else but God" ? Not a love of other people and a hope in their ultimate goodness, of striving for justice, equality and the blooming of human potential, and a hatred/dislike of injustice and lost potential - not a sense of commitment to people and causes outside yourself ?

Sorry, but that's appalling.

Just to clarify: are you a believer because you think you will eventually go to heaven ? I don't mean the 72 inexhaustible white-breasted virgins (or raisins: it depends how the word is translated), but up there (or wherever) with a god and archangels and angels ? Do you also believe in a hell, so that, for you, life here on earth becomes a constant effort to suck up to one and keep away from the other ? And nothing much else matters ?

So sad :(

Joe

Dear Joe,

Regarding heaven and hell, I don't believe these are actual places, nor that they are binary and mutually exclusive, nor silly stories about virgins, angels and archangels. At the most extreme end, heaven is the state of being one with God and at the other extreme, hell is being totally unaware of, and subjectively separated from, God.

Just because I am not a humanist does not make me incapable of love:

"Not a love of other people"
-Other people are divine, just as me. Recognizing God in others is a religious practice and loving others is a way to love God.

"hope in their ultimate goodness"
- Why "hope" where there is certainty? Everyone is inherently goodness personified already (even while their minds are clouded by ignorance and their behaviour temporarily reflects that ignorance)!

"striving for justice"
-Why "strive" when justice is already here?
From a human point-of-view justice can never be fully achieved, but once we take a broader perspective and look beyond our temporary human condition, we all receive absolute justice according with our deeds.

"equality"
-People are not equal and never will be, no matter how much you'll try to square the circle. Besides our obvious physical and mental differences, we are also at different stages of spiritual evolution and we have different lessons to learn. We are however ultimately equal in the sense that what we are not really humans - ultimately what we are is God, so we all equal God.

"blooming of human potential"
-The blooming of human potential is in achieving union with God.

"and a hatred/dislike of injustice and lost potential"
-I prefer compassion and fortitude over hatred, and taking a longer-term approach.

"not a sense of commitment to people"
-Commitment to what we actually are, not to the erroneous state of being people, which is an illusion.

"and causes outside yourself"
-There is small-self (often referred to as 'ego') and True-Self, which is God. Commitment to what is outside my small-self -definitely, but there is nothing outside my True-Self, outside God, and therefore nothing else to commit to.

Squeers
I don't know Yuyutsu. He/she may not assume to 'know' otherwise it would not be faith based belief. Faith assumes an absence of knowing.

Maybe religious faith is right for him/her. While there are many who sit in that pool of 'knowing' beyond all doubt I don't wish to dwell there nor live in judgement of those who do. As long as it is each to his own and there is little interference in how people live their personal lives.

It is sad that Yuyutsu can only find meaning or purpose with a belief in the supernatural, but that is his/her right and there is not much anyone can do about it, we each make choices on how we live our lives.

Many believers seem to think they would sin and lose all morality without a belief in God. Much rather we are all protected from that eventuality by those people sticking with their chosen faith.

Hey Pelican/Squeers/Joe, is it just me, or is Runner starting to seem downright reasonable and rational to you too?

Not yet, but he's coming close :)

Pelican,
I don't know yuyutsu either but I have debated him at length on this topic and am satisfied again here that he does claim to "know"--he can disabuse me of this notion if he likes.
I don't know that it's true either, "that faith assumes an absence of knowing". It logically and in all modesty should, of course, yet religious adherents who claim to "know" are the commonality are they not? A timorous "faith" seems to be an unsatisfying draught, and so is fortified with considerable conviction---even whole spurious ontologies like intelligent design. It's a small step from this "knowledge" or absolute conviction--which amount to the same thing in practice--to the kind of judgemental attitude I allude to above, or to violent intolerance, fire and brimstone and militant millenarianism.
I'd be just as scathing of atheists if they claimed to "know" that God doesn't exist, or held their negation with absolute conviction. But all the atheists I know are reasonable creatures who only want for evidence and are brave enough to accept their insignificance in the scheme of things in its absence and in preference to pulling the wool over their own eyes. In preference what's more to condescending, at best, and sitting in censorial judgement (by proxy) at worst. Indeed, it's rich indeed that the same zealots who demonise gays and murder abortionists (again by proxy) call atheists "militant"!
Blessed are the meek---and hopefully the ignorant.

And to tie into the thread; I'm all for mother earth so long as we temper our conviction with a recognition of the absurd---thinking Camus, but especially Becket, who was modest and resigned in his millenarianism.

The United Nations are not blind to the facts of religion.

Ok! You all want religion in your life's knowing, fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaOVPaYf780&feature=related

After this.......I shall speak of it No more.

You all deserve each other, you really do:)

I shall love the earth and you lot can do what-ever floats your boat.

I guess non religious people never had a look in, Oh well.....like everything else that gets taken off us, why not it all as usual.

LEA

Well, Squeers, all of the Books have, after all, been written by humans, and presumably priests or people who otherwise had a vested interest in systematising the myths and descriptions of social relations that were current when they pulled it all together. The task of embroidering, modifying, interpreting, mediating and inventing new up-to-date verions of what some guys wrote one or two or three thousand years ago was worked on by the monks and priests of the Middle Ages and by the various rabbis and mullahs over the past millenia.

So their books are bodies of guff that anybody can feel free to dip into and construct whatever fantasy world they like, they don't have to subject it to any sort of rigorous, scientific analysis at all.

Meanwhile, in the real world of oppression and injustice and pain and deprivation, real people are suffering. Yuyutsu can see in every one of those people some reflection of god if she likes, but that doesn't ease their misery - which, of course, he can justify as some sort of test of faith in some god or other.

It's a tragedy that intelligent people, as I'm sure Yuyutsu is, have diverted their energies to, in effect, reinforcing that misery, and thereby rendering themselves at best irrelevant to the relief of that misery, and to the tasks of enabling people to envision their potential, as they have every right to do.

Joe

Dear Lea,

Unlike the former 5 movies, your latest link is gentle, civilized and orderly. Thank you for that!

This presentation depicts all believers of God at their worst and all atheists at their rosy best. In reality, examples abound of both believers and unbelievers that are (socially-speaking) angels and of others that are (socially-speaking) monsters. It is even quite common to find atheists that are more religious than the average believer as well as believers that are less religious than the average atheist!

I will endeavor to take apart each argument as time and space allows. I'll begin with this one:

The presentation claims that believers would inform Nazis that knock on their door that they hide Jews, in order to avoid lying. That is historically incorrect: there are many known cases of Christian monks and nuns who went to great lengths to save Jews and risked their life lying to the Germans "Jews? not here!".

Also, the 5 Yamas and 5 Niyamas are the yogic equivalents of the 10-commandments. The first Yama is AHIMSA (remember Gandhi?) - non-violence. The second is SATYAM - truth. The religious instructions are clear: Ahimsa comes first and Satyam is second. If there is ever a clash between them, then non-violence takes precedence over telling the truth, thus a religious yogi would never give away Jews to the Nazis in order to tell the truth.

Dear Joe,

"Meanwhile, in the real world of oppression and injustice and pain and deprivation, real people are suffering"

The cause of oppression is distancing oneself from God. A man who acknowledges that others are inherently divine as himself, would not wish to oppress others, treat them unjustly, hurt or deprive them.
The cause of suffering also, is distancing oneself from God by identifying instead with the human body, its needs and desires. A man who truly understands that being human is a temporary condition would not be affected and shaken by the afflictions of the body.
The only reality underlying what seems as "the world", is God. Realizing this, one is freed from enmity and suffering.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Thanks for demonstrating my observation that one can embroider, re-fashion, up-date, fantasise and conjure up whatever one likes from a questionable body of written work put together long ago by people with vested interests. Meanwhile, the world moves on, 'laden with happiness and tears', regardless.

Keep spinning, I'm sure it can be great fun :)

Joe

Hi Joe,

"one can embroider, re-fashion, up-date, fantasise and conjure up whatever one likes from a questionable body of written work put together long ago by people with vested interests."

- Sounds to me just what humanists are doing!

You mentioned some unspecified "vested interests". Do you think I also have vested interests?

Well, I do have one:

To prevent the persecution of my people, those who love God (regardless of our specific beliefs or even the lack thereof), by the emerging materialist/humanist/environmentalist culture.
To protect us against being thrown once more to the lions, gulags, re-education camps and mental hospitals, or from having our children taken away from us to be brought up as humanists.

Yes, the world moves on and it is my vested interest to defend ourselves from being forcefully dragged along in that sad direction which the world is taking.

Hi Yuyutsu,

" .... a questionable body of written work put together long ago by people with vested interests."

Wow ! What a reaction one can get, using a small stick :)

Hey, was that you, back there in the fifth century BC or whenever ?

I support your right to believe as you do, free from harassment or discrimination, provided you abide by the common law of the country, and provided your religion does not in turn discriminate against or harass, say, women, and allows them also the freedom to exercise all the rights recognised by the secular state.

A secular state properly recognises everybody's right TO their religion, and an equal right FROM religion. It does not recognise any right by any religion to put demands on the state for preferential or differential treatment.

And no, I would not support your being sent to some gulag or laogai, or for your children to be taken from you, unless it is relevant to your pretty drastically breaking of the law.

But nobody is arguing for Christians to be thrown to the lions Yuyutsu. That is an absurd suggestion. I am sure you don't really believe that is what is being suggested (even metaphorically).

Many humanists and secularists are Christian. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

"The cause of oppression is distancing oneself from God. A man who acknowledges that others are inherently divine as himself, would not wish to oppress others, treat them unjustly, hurt or deprive them."

Nice words and great if it works, but history shows it doesn't. What about all the murder and oppression done in the name of God.

God is not a good tool for ensuring peace, man needs to look to himself for a peace based in reality to that end.

Yuyutsu......yes, pelican is right. Indoctrinate your own children! Why do you need ours? Only parasites needs a host.

I was going to back away on this subject, but the E-mails wouldn't stop, as I see it, and if its any consultation....Christianity is the least of our problems. However.....change must be slow, for a equal transitional balance that comes with the evolution of man. Love and virtues that is teached by religion, has put us all here......but as you, or some might not think......Times do change and we are a flawed creation:) See! as I see it! Bullies like in schools, need to be taught a lesson, and I feel for those that do think they have a choice.

My respects for the journey of mankind, will always hold a close and private place for me, and so it should for all others. Religion is and should be, a private thing while the conscious minds of mankind develops in such a way......we all understand it.

Until then.......we are all but guessing.

To all religious people which are human!

We are all the same organism:)

So what are you fighting about:)

Idiots:)

LEA

Dear Joe,

"provided you abide by the common law of the country"..."unless it is relevant to your pretty drastically breaking of the law"

How un-funny: a humanist majority (or a materialist+humanist+environmentalist coalition) could legislate anything they like whatsoever, then they can claim that religious people are breaking the law. Something like this happened in democratic Germany, 1933.

"and provided your religion does not"..."everybody's right TO their religion"..."any right by any religion"

-Seems you missed my earlier point: there is no such thing as "my religion" or "your religion", there is only religion, period, defined as whatever brings one closer to God. You may not believe in God, which is fine (and at times and circumstances, in fact, disbelief in God may even bring you closer to Him than if you were believing), but some of the things you do (such as my earlier examples of loving and respecting your parents, or caring for the environment) bring you closer to God regardless, hence to that extent you are being religious whether your recognize it or not.

I strongly respect and support everyone's right to live anyway they want (without those caveats that you mentioned such as abiding by human/secular law), simply because free-choice is essential for religion. One can be forced to act in certain ways, but nobody can ever be forced to come closer to God: one can only come closer to God by their own free-choice. Making one behave "as God expects" (supposedly) is a terrible mistake because it denies the other person the option to express their goodness and surrender to God of their own free will.

Dear Pelican,

"But nobody is arguing for Christians to be thrown to the lions Yuyutsu"

-I was not referring specifically to Christians, but to religious people, to lovers of God. Christians may or may not be religious, and so are atheists.

"murder and oppression done in the name of God"

-As above: using the name of God is not an indicator of religiosity, neither today nor in history.

(continued...)

(...continued)

"God is not a good tool for ensuring peace, man needs to look to himself for a peace based in reality to that end"

-If you mean what I think you do, then I agree that ideas-about-God, in themselves are not a good tool. The only source of peace AND the only reality is God, not ideas about Him. If man actually knew himself, they would find their divine essence, and with it peace.

Back to the lions: read for yourself how much venom there is here towards religious people or any mention of God. Yes, Christians are tolerated somewhat better, but that is because they are perceived by many atheists more like a peculiar social-club than as an actual spiritual discipline. Once there is serious discussion of God however (as opposed for example to the usual nagging about sexual behaviours to which they are already used), humanists feel threatened as they sense that their ideals may be exposed for the nonsense which they are and fall from grace. When they feel that their doctrine is threatened, they are likely to resort to violence. The problem is that they feel threatened merely by the sight of people who care not for their ideas.

Dear Lea,

Indoctrination is not a religious act. Currently the worst indoctrinators of children are the government (through the [compulsory] school-system) and the media. Religious parents allow their child to explore their spirituality, which in public schools today is likely to be a cause for ridicule and bullying.

If you don't want to receive E-mail notifications, you can click on "Email Alerts".

"Religion is and should be, a private thing"
- I fully agree.

"We are all the same organism"
- We are indeed the same in the deepest sense, except that God is not an organism.

"the evolution of man"
- While individually we all evolve, as a society, I'm afraid, I currently see more devolution around. A society that attempts to deny and suppress God is not going to get far.

Yuyutsu
I don't see any venom towards religious people. Disagreement is not venom.

Many non-believers also get their fair share of criticism often being accused of having no values or morals, which is clearly false. The possession of morals and values is not related to a belief in God.

I certainly don't have any resentment towards religious people, many of my family and friends are religious.

I do see people defending themselves against what they see as intrusions into their personal space and the lack of respect some religous people have for other faiths or for atheists/agnostics. This comes out in discussions, for example, about religion in schools.

It is too easy to dismiss criticism as venom. What is most appalling is the accusations of anti-Catholicism in relation to the handling of child sexual abuse cases within the Catholic Church. It is indefensible to accuse people of being anti-Christian for finally making these cases known. Evil must not be allowed to prosper even within the Church. Church authority should not be used to protect criminals. There is still some concern on recent reports that the Catholic Church is still protecting some of these vile men.

While these concerns are portrayed as venomous or anti-Christian, but nobody, religious or otherwise should ever be afraid of the truth. If that is venom then I don't hold out much hope for honesty in religous discussions of this kind.

Dear Pelican,

The problem is that people tend to identify religion with certain organizations (such as the Catholic Church which you mentioned), then blame religious people for the faults of those organizations.

Belonging to particular organizations is not necessarily an indication of religion and intrusion into other people's personal space and lack of respect are not religious acts.

I did point it clearly here that "religions" is not the plural of "religion". Religion is any method that brings one closer to God. Belonging to religious orders may or may not promote religion, depending on individual circumstances.

Earlier I raised the issue of religious obstacles: "the problem is greed and avarice" and got in reply: "Oh here we go again - more religiosity". At least Peter Hume was honest about it! I propose that the origins of most objections to religion are not the criticism of churches (these are just easy targets, even when some deserve criticism) or the love of truth and logic, but rather the desire to protect one's weaknesses that set us apart from God. Those weaknesses are traditionally depicted as the seven deadly sins. There's an excellent wikipedia entry about those that could make any reader, believer or otherwise, feel uneasy.

Historically, churches did intrude into people's personal space and attempted to enforce righteous behaviour on society at large. That was extremely wrong. I would never advise on taking away people's rights to hold onto their weaknesses for as long as they want (and in any case, even when we do want to lose them, those weaknesses do not go away in one day), such matters should remain private between each one and God, but somehow people feel threatened and as soon as they hear the name "God" they get worried about their rights to retain their sins!

Hi Yuyutsu,

Well, I'm very glad that the bitter struggles in ideology and politics over the hundreds of years leading up to the Enlightenment culminated in a clear separation of church/mosque/temple and State, and the recognition of equal rights for the private practice of religion on the one hand, and the freedom FROM religion on the other. That is a principle that we must fight to uphold, in the face of constant reactionary demands to weaken it and give some crackpot religion or other special rights to exclude some of their own captives from the benefits of a democratic society.

'Left', take note.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

"a clear separation of church/mosque/temple and State, and the recognition of equal rights for the private practice of religion on the one hand, and the freedom FROM religion on the other. That is a principle that we must fight to uphold, "

So far so good, I agree.

"in the face of constant reactionary demands to weaken it"

To Whom are you referring and what are those demands? 'Reaction' is always in relation to a prior action, so what action are you referring to? could it possibly been some act of oppression against religious people? Please clarify!

"and give some crackpot religion or other special rights to exclude some of their own captives from the benefits of a democratic society."

How clever... but why bring in democracy? is democracy really a benefit for everyone?

Democracy allows, for example, a humanist majority to impose its beliefs and practices on religious people. What if the majority made it a law, for example, to worship Gaia, then sent anyone that refused to bow to Her to prison or re-education camps?

I am not asking for religious people to be given "special rights", only that our inherent rights not be taken away from us. A democracy is capable of plundering people's natural rights just as any dictatorship. What about the right of religious people (or anyone else for that matter) to be left alone and not be forced to take part in your 'democratic society'?