This somewhat disjointed personal apologia makes some sort of case for pantheism, and none at all for the Judeo-Christian god concept as espoused by Mormons and indeed the whole gaggle of christian churches. To equate everything as a manifestation of god is to open up the question of why introduce the notion of god at all? Simply do away with the 'god notion' altogether - a very good idea.

Hi there,

Allow me to paraphrase your central theme; "In an ideal world, regardless of faith, we would all work in harmony with one another, and perhaps become more altruistic human beings... In reality, this is not so."

Gee, thank you captn, obvious, but I didn't receive anything new here - and I'd go so much to say that perhaps even some in the religious communities; christian, catholic, moremon ect have come to the same conclusion.

I would call this article a prime example of agnostic reasoning. Too permissive to upset religious groups or outspoken representatives of the church, too simple and a waste of time for any atheist who comes across it. I wouldn't call agnostic thought, ground breaking or any more reasonable than those that come from an atheist belief... It just comes across more diplomatic and socially acceptable.

Here's a tip...
- Harden up

Cheers

Matthew Cozier

Contary to Matthew I would recommend that David quite literally lighten up instead.

Einstein's famous archetypal equation E=MC2 told us that everything, including our body-minds, is a form of energy or light. Quantum physics tells us the same thing. And that the indivisible universe is full of space-time paradoxes.

And yet the implications of these discoveries and understandings have hardly had any effect on the culture at large, except in the production of modern machines of all kinds.

Altogether our "culture" is getting thicker and thicker---more dense.
And then we wonder why so many people are depressed and/or take drugs in an effort to "lighten" up or relieve the thickening pressure.

But what if this energy or light is also Radiantly Conscious and that this Radiant Consciousness is our always already state of being---or put in another way, that prior to our "fall" into identification with our mortal meat-bodies. we are immortal indestructible light beings.

These two related references elaborate on this theme.

1. http://www.dabase.org/dht7.htm
2. http://www.realgod.org

Plus two references which point out that right life only begins when one has understood the meaning and significance of death. Otherwise one is always crippled by a hell-deep fear.

1. http://www.easydeathbook.com
2. http://www.dabase.org/dualsens.htm on the primal urge to Happiness

I think that Gore Vidal was right when he reminded us that Man has made God in his own image.

David

Jesus was spot on when He said that the Light came into the world but men loved the darkness more than Light. Unfortunately the author shows no respect for Jesus words about heaven and hell. Either Jesus was telling the truth when He said He came to seek and save the lost (from sin and hell) or He was telling a lie. He never left anyone with any other option. Trying to rationalize away the plain texts of Scripture seems to be a favourite past time for some. I for one am pleased that He saved my soul from eternal damnation. A person would be a fool to disregard God's mercy in favour of their own sin. It won't be good people in heaven it will only be saved people. The grace of God is available to all those who call on the name of the Lord. All liars, immoral, homosexual, corrupt will end up in the lake of fire. I am thankful that I have been saved from my rotten sin. I pray that as many as I come in contact with will receive God's great pardon. It cost Him the life of HIs Son to purchase it.

Runner, what a load of nonsence, the new testiment was written 90 years after the alleged events, by people not present at the time and justified by by christians as a leap in faith.

Jewish and Roman offical documents of the time make it very clear that this fairy tail has no real basis in truth, the resurection did not happen nor did the loves and fish story and others occur. If the family of jesus was the only witness to the events as told in the new testament, then how can they seriously be believed without any independant witneses.

I have more faith in Santa and the tooth fairy than some storline made up to market crosses.

David needed ten thousand words, however ten are all that is necessary."faith is believing in something,that you know dosen't exist"

The "believers" seem to think that the bible is the ultimate truth and that they only have to quote it for us atheists to surrender and accept their argument. They don't seem to realise that we regard everything written there as the word of ignorant and deluded men. It is absurd to regard the bible as the word of some mythical supernatural being even if it might contain the odd philosophy that we feel is appropriate.

Dave here God was first alluded to by Abraham & his decendents kept that belief alive. Religion was created by Greek scholars to answer to the human brain that which cannot be answered which gave rise to the early direction of NATURAL JUSTICE so all that wish to deride God & the faith that goes with it should consider thier claim to natural justice. I myself had only a little belief in God but it was a funny thing when I had my accident in 1985 & I lay there partly pinned by 1.2 tonne of steel grid how I asked for his help. Likewise many who say they do not believe scream God help me when hurt hits them but it is time to drop the arguement as my father said two arguements that cannot be won is politics & religion as they are a persons belief & who is to say my belief is right & yours wrong
May your Lord shine on you all well
God Bless from Dave

I completely agree with snake. If ever I base my argument on logic and what has been proven, if this happens to contradict a “believer”, they offer some fairy tale bible story as defence of their argument. They seem to believe that I should give this book of fables the same level of credence as proven sources. I was a catholic, I have read the bible in its entirety (many years ago) and if anything it only gives more sway to the argument of an atheists. It contains many contradictions “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” vs “turn the other cheek”, God is meant to be perfect. So why is he able to be taunted by the devil into destroying Job's life. Anyway It is everybody’s right to believe or not.

aaargh... VK3AUU I keep on having to educate you on the same issue :)

You quoted Gore Vidal about us making God in our own image..

R U SERIOUS ? yes.. 'most' religions invent a god they 'like'.. who gives them what they want.... humanly speaking.

I challenge you to read the Gospels.. and the tell me 'we invented' that Jesus.

"If any man would follow me.. let him deny himself, take up his cross and come after me" err.. does not exactly sound like the kind of Messiah I would invent. .... would YOU invent such a religious figure?

Jesus taught AGAINST all our natural inclinations..

Don't LUST.
Don't GET ANGRY
Don't be SELF RIGHTEOUS
Don't seek to BE TOP DOG
LOVE your enemies.
BLESS/do good to those who persecute you.

No mate..I'm just not seeing Vidals assessment of religion in Christ and Christianity.

Have you ever wondered how such a one as Christ impacted our value system?

COMFORT WOMEN, GEISHA'S and SEX STARVED BRITISH SOLDIERS.
Today, I was watching 'The World at War' and it was on the Burma campaign...
The Japanese had women brought to the front lines, 'comfort' women for the troops.. and 'Geisha's for the officers.
To my knowledge, the British,Austalian an American governments never ever sent 'women for pleasure' to their troops. Sure the boys would have indulged in what was around at the various cities on RnR, but that was not 'policy'. The Brits sent Vera Lynn to sing for them :)

I believe it was the 'value' of 'no sex outside of marriage' (at least in principle) that guided the Allies in this matter. And of course...that value comes from Jesus. I hardly think that 'men' would have invented a Messiah who denied them the very thing their bodies crave for ? er..do you ?

Sometimes I read your posts, runner, and think.. maybe you are actually an atheist/agnostic troll.. posing as a Christian to make them look bad, writing parodies of Christian belief to discredit the religion.. after all, surely no genuine believer could write such utter tripe? Could they?

Sadly, however.. I think you are serious, and you mean what you write. I have seen better logic from kindergarten students. Do you have any other mode than "mindlessly blather cliches from the wooden-headed blinkered believer's playbook?" At least Boazy, the high priest of proselytism, tries (in vain) to argue a point coherently.

It was St Thomas Aquinas who finally admitted that Christian faith needed to be tempered with Scientific Reasoning.

Further though Aquinas did find difficulty writing a thesis on the topic, his persistence did begin the universal educational system now in use in our Western world.

Regards, BB, WA.

STICKY.... 'In vain' ? :) I'll have to try harder 0_^

I can see the eyes of many an OLOer rolling with 'that' little gem.

I argue the issue, because:

a) Paul did. (Acts 17:16ff)

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.

HOW did the people respond to Paul ? :) aah..nothing is new, pretty much like OLO members respond here..as follows:

"A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?"

Wellll....I didn't see THAT coming :)

Sticky.. you say Runner "Babbles" (words to that effect) but he is sincere..and speaking purely from the 'faith hip'..I don't think I've ever seen a harsh word from Runner..unlike many who attack him.

b) The Arguments/Evidence is Compelling.

It's a matter of perspective. I wonder how many of those ripping into the Bible, would accept documents which have far weaker attestation...including those secular sources which even refer to Christ, John the Baptist, and Christians from Roman sources.

Although external evidence is strong, and I include in this the archeology aspect, the internal evidence is most persuasive to me.
While I am encouraged by such things as:
i) Bible mentions 'pool of Siloam'
ii) Scholars all agree this is a fabrication, no such pool ever existed.
iii) Archeologists discover....."The Pool of Siloam"
iv) "Scholars" are now red faced, exposed as biased and shamed.
v) The 'bigoted, biases, fairy tale' the Christians believe in...is confirmed.

This pattern is repeated over and over. Hence, I say 'the evidence is...'compelling'. Is it disputed ? of course :) Some people still say the moon is made of green cheeze too.

I don't believe in fairies. I know, let's call monkeys 'fairies'. Hey, now I believe in fairies! I believe in fairies, everyone!

Richard Dawkins said it best: "When you understand why YOU don't believe in Thor, then you will understand why I don't believe in God."

Fairies has about the same credibility as Richard Dawkins

The contributions from Christian godbotherers to this forum range in quality from the intelligent but obscure, to the boofheaded and unintelligible.

I nominate runner's interminable drivel as the most representative in OLO of the latter form of religious blather. At least some of his ilk make an effort to justify their crap, even if only within the self-lobotomised parameters that their faith permits.

david certainly demonstrates the curiosity that drives a search for answers...here its the question of god, and all around us we see effects of same which led to 'man made creations' we now enjoy...car, plane and computer...

to my experience...having been involved in many surgery/postmortems, it struck me that irrespective of how varied the humans 'externals' looked to the world...once inside the body its almost identical in shape, consistency and colour...caucasian, mongol and negro...

and taking an identity of an single cell, in my case a liver cell(hepatocyte)...when I work independently...I set to wonder how did I know how to form this size and shape and function, and all hepatocytes to look so alike and together form shape, size, function of the 'liver'...which identical in most humans...and how would I know what my job was...and how did each muscle cell of the triceps do the same, and heart cell and brain...which looks different...when we all began from single parent cell ie zygote(egg-sperm)...was there some intelligent force that oversaw it all to correct place, size, form, function...I mean there has to have been some centralized control otherwise too much risk of variable results which I know does not often happen...and same to energy process driving independent intelligent activity...

ah...how many long hours have I mulled over this nursing a beer...alas without an answer...wait a minute...beer damages brain cells...less brain cell means decreasing ability to compute towards answer...damn...all right back to start but no beers...

so with so much mystery and wonder happening within each of us who is reading this...I expect the struggle to understand god...and which involves above and much more to 'energy in intelligent dance of life'...anyone who thinks they are close to the answer is very naive indeed...

Sam
Ps~david to 'being all-knowing is the same as knowing nothing'...answer to god does not know each humans 'future' while they their soul has a body may lie with concept of 'sin' which fundamentally linked in most religious texts on god...otherwise 'god made the person sin' as god already knew what that person was to do...get the drift...

BOAZ said "I can see the eyes of many an OLOer rolling with 'that' little gem."

I hope you were being tongue in cheek there mate and saying that many eyes would be rolling at the prospect of your trying harder? Because my goodness you try hard!

Good point Yindin, in fact this was (is) all based on astrology & astronomy. Later on economies political "heroes/leaders" turned it into spins/lies for the people. Of course, billions of "Gullibles 'R Us" fans over the world just want to turn the other cheek. In the end, it always comes down to $. & it never is pretty. I'm a worker next to a courthouse.

I know a lady whose God is Hitler.
She worship him every day.
We humans can make a God out of any thing and every one.
That may be the only freedom we have.

I luv the fact that Robert Ingersoll & Thomas Paine (among others) made a big-time joke of the evangelelical & political con-artistry. One can easily say they are basically "holding hands" with one another.

David you seem like an honest searcher so I mean this charitably but it doesn’t seem like you’ve really done much homework. Its great you’re reflecting on the biggest questions, but like in any area of knowledge there is no need to repeat other’s past mistakes or wrestle with problems that the greatest minds have already dealt with.

These are just one click away David. Godbless.

What will Heaven be like?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/juneweb-only/6-2-51.0.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/heaven.html

The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351

Theology for beginners
http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2006/09/theology-for-beginners.html

God’s Knowledge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

Sam said said:
"and taking an identity of an single cell, in my case a liver cell(hepatocyte)...when I work independently...I set to wonder how did I know how to form this size and shape and function, and all hepatocytes to look so alike and together form shape, size, function of the 'liver'...which identical in most humans...and how would I know what my job was...and how did each muscle cell of the triceps do the same, and heart cell and brain...which looks different...when we all began from single parent cell ie zygote(egg-sperm)...was there some intelligent force that oversaw it all to correct place, size, form, function...I mean there has to have been some centralized control otherwise too much risk of variable results which I know does not often happen...and same to energy process driving independent intelligent activity..."

There is mate.. it's called DNA and the human genome

A definition of 'god' would help enourmously.

Preferably one that is rational, reasonable, logical. All of which would make faith redundant.

Personally lm partial to the ideas of causation and conditionality. Meaning, all things are conditional upon others things. Nothing arises of its own volition and all things are caused. This notion pretty much strings everything together driven by the same underlying process. It could loosely be an allegory for the essence of creation. Or 'god' if you like.

Dear Martin

I'm not sure what to make of your post bro.....could you clarify exactly what you meant by those links ? They seem to support what I'm saying.

Perhaps I gave you a wrong impression ?

blessings.

stickman wrote 'There is mate.. it's called DNA and the human genome'...

not really bro...dna is just the blue print or 'building plan'...human genome is the 'total' dna coding of a human...and we have an idea how the dna which exists as a paired coiled chemical chain, is stimulated by demand to unravel in parts exposing inner sequence of structure on which a sequence of action takes place to result in protiens...which is the basic building blocks of a cell and its functional products...

but we have no clue to what process is involved that forms each unique inner parts of the human eg to give the liver its unique shape...and the same liver shape is maintained in all humans...think about it...this question will not arise if say liver looked like a round blob in all humans...yeah cells keep dividing and increasing till there is enough and it stops growing so forms a ball and why not...that will be understandable...but here its a really unique shape...and consistently in all humans I have seen...and this unique structure goes all the way to cellular level and how they are arranged...
http://www.britannica.com/eb/art/print?id=68633
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/art-60419/Microscopic-structure-of-the-liver-Liver-cells-or-hepatocytes-have

see what I mean...interesting huh...and if we go further and say if dna codes for 'general shape' as well...then how is it controlled during the development phase...meaning without some form of sensing to how all the multiplying liver cells are arranging themselves and some form of control mechanism to create more growth here and less there...it is not possible to form that unique shape...hope I have explained this well enough...

so it would seem that each of our cells have an 'inner sense' of its purpose and of its local cells and on the large scale to work in balanced harmony for benefit of the whole(until a feminist...oops...I mean tumour...forms)...all without any discernible intelligence...apply same to man and god...but with reasoning and logical intelligence...

Sam

bushbred,
Interesting that you should bring St Thomas Aquinas into this discussion. Actually what he did was to affirm that there is no conflict between Christian faith and scientific reasoning. (I'm not referring to certain types of reasoning found on OLO purporting to be scientific but which would certainly not have been considered such by Plato and Aristotle).

St Thomas was taught by St Albert who was one of the greatest scientists of his time. Right from the start there have been any number of Christians who had good scientific knowledge. For example St Basil and St Augustine are two Christians from early times whose erudition in a wide variety of subjects was second to none. An even earlier example is St Luke who was in the medical profession that has always relied on scientific knowledge. In fact it his hard to imagine that some degree of scientific knowledge was not necessary for St Paul in his tent-making trade. Fishermen such as St Peter and St Andrew would have had to have some scientific knowledge too.

To sum up you don't have to park your brain when you embrace the Christian faith. So I would answer those atheists who protest (too much methinks) that you don't have to have faith in order to have ethics and morality that neither do you have to have atheism in order to think clearly or scientifically.

A definition of god. Is that what you are looking for. I would interact with you all if you didn't have such closed minds. The world is just a all minding bender. I said before" the real god has no name"
So! You want the answer.

You were born with it! Its a evolutionary fact. Go back to my notes.

Before god, the paintings on the walls were exact, and it came from our own minds and its the thoughts of our earliest beginnings, and that's all it is!

How many more centuries will it take!

In the heart is were god lives and no-where else. Stop creating your false gods. Its evolution

I think we’ve found out your first name Boaz. The David I was referring to was the author. Personally I think you’re a star, I’ve found it difficult to contradict anything you’ve ever said.

Speaking for myself (but I suspect you’re one too) I was firmly set against God for a long time. But it means we’re of particular service to Him. We have the advantage of knowing everything about atheism but others know nothing about the living God.

“tribulations must not cease until God sees us remade. Or sees that our remaking is now hopeless” CS Lewis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e0EQlQXoEo
(her tears are mine)

http://www.muslimjourneytohope.com/testimonies/testimony_afshin.wmv
(my tears again)

You know that those in here, particularly the ones that denigrate you the most, are much more likely to become saints. You know who I mean when I say he would much rather we watch TV, or distract ourselves in any way other than interacting with believers. Those who are truly lost make every effort (unconscious or not) to avoid any kind of contact with Christ. Don’t give up on us mate. You know God will work through you to reach some of us (hopefully all). History, science and reason, indeed all our faculties, are in your favour.

Love and blessings.
See you at the Resurrection.

All the best with that, my friend.

It is pointless arguing with a religious person about evidence based reasoning. Faith is about just that, the holding of a belief in the absence of proof ie. no evidence.

On that premise, science can never hold its own in an argument about a belief in a supernatural being because it has to contend with the powerful weapon of indoctrination. Intelligent religious people seem to be able to compartmentalize away that aspect of rationale and logical reasoning. This is not to put religious people down, afterall we are all brainwashed or influenced to some extent via marketing and advertising.

Without the usual tangible tools of debate, it is really like banging your head against a brick wall so why do we keep doing it? The religious articles and posts seem to get more responses than other posts. Why is that?

"I may find out what it’s like to be part a bolt of lightning above Tanzania. Or a breath of wind in a sail."

Sorry David Dawson but you will never feel what it is like being lightning or wind because YOU will be dead, nonexistent, and incapable of feeling anything. Nice thought though.

A heap more pleasant than the ones put out by our resident three amigos. These chaps tout words like 'hell', 'lake of fire', 'eternal damnation', and 'see you at the resurrection' like the best death cultists going.

As the good rabbi explains "Few Jews have believed in hell. One would have to ascribe too much sadism, too much of a delight in punishing, to God," and who "like to think God is above the sort of vindictiveness some hellfire preachers ascribe to Him."

Moses did his best to rid the Jewish people of the death centred beliefs they had picked up from the Egyptians while enslaved. There is virtually no mention of hell or eternal damnation or even an afterlife in the Old Testament. In reality it is sometimes difficult not to view Christianity and Islam as the bastard offspring of the Jewish faith, like rebellious teenagers fixated on heavy metal death music and gothic themes.

While as Martin, Boaz, and runner prepare for the 'Rapture' I had better think about how I'm going to die by being thrown into the lake of fire but still face eternal damnation, though I'm sure their personal gods will find a way.

Some posters on these forums suggest that religion is the basis for our morality.

I don't think that's the case. Religion tries to induce a type of false morality by the carrot-and-stick method.

Do bad things and you will be punished - do good things and there will be a huge pay-off at the end.

Nothing about doing good just because it's the better thing to do.

Now that's a pretty selfish and totally self-centred attitude for existence.

Take away the notion of a chance at eternal life and religion (and life itself) becomes meaningless for many people.

For them, the purpose of the entire universe just to create an environment where people can live while they accrue enough "frequent-flyer points" just to make it to the next level.

Hey Sam said...

Yeah I am with you in my absolute awe at the process by which a zygote becomes a fully formed human.. quite incredible. I am a 4th year med student and I never cease to be stunned at the intricacies and complexities of the human organism. But I can't agree with this:

"I mean there has to have been some centralized control otherwise too much risk of variable results which I know does not often happen."

Why does this have to be? I know we may not be able to currently explain the mechanism by which this happens, but we might one day, mightn't we?

If that centralised control does not reside in DNA (or mitochondrial DNA or something else that is present in every cell) then where could it be? I know that the researchers were pretty flummoxed when the genome was sequenced, that there were only approx. 30k genes when they had expected far more to account for the complexity of the human animal..
http://biochem118.stanford.edu/Papers/Genome%20Papers/Genome's%20Riddle.pdf

Their theory seems to lie in the ability of the relatively small number of genes to combine proteins in different ways that lower order species have not managed.

Interesting stuff anyway but none of it is remotely evidence for a creator, IMHO.

<< Richard Dawkins said it best: "When you understand why YOU don't believe in Thor, then you will understand why I don't believe in God.">>

I did not know about this gem, Jon J. This sounds like: When you understand why you cannot speak Chinese, then you will understand why I do not speak Turkish.

In both cases it is a statement about the ‘unbeliever’s’ mind, not about the subject of his unbelief or ignorance, but only up to a point. I, for instance, do not believe in Thor, and I think I understand why, but would not need to write a book about the “Thor Delusion” filling it with arguments why I do not believe it. The idea of Thor is not that important for me, to be anti-Thor it is not an important part of my world view.

David’s article itself is more or less classical pantheism in an agnostic robe. The Buddhist, or other oriental versions, seem to me more inspiring in that they complement the Western/Christian way of seeing things.

C.J. Morgan, rommel, snake, pelican (and others): I think J.W. Goethe in his Faust expressed a good understanding of your position. In the best English translation I know,

True, human beings may abound
Who growl at things beyond their ken,
Mocking the beautiful and good,
And all they haven't understood ...

csteele

'There is virtually no mention of hell or eternal damnation or even an afterlife in the Old Testament.'

I have no delight in informing you that you are wrong on this issue. Daniel foretold of hell. 'And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.' (Daniel 12:2)

Few Jews also believed Jesus was their Messiah. When He returns the Jewish nation will turn and believe. Hopefully a few more people will also lose the scales off their eyes and be able to see that Jesus died for their sins also. Without His mercy and grace we are totally lost and continue to be wise only in our own eyes as seen by many of the posters on OLO.

How we all got here is due to comets & asteroids & the like. Just watch The History Channel (among others). Namely, The Universe series. None of this "The Bible/Koran/whatever says..." nonsense. Of course, "Gullibles 'R Us" will luv to treasure the illogical. The more the better in their eyes. ;) -LOL. Many sarcastic comics are religious & political at the same time. Do the math.

when one faces death or at least faces real hardship like starvation, one gets a differing view of a god. On the other hand when one is living it up in wealth & doesn't know any better/the difference, then one can easily tag them selves as in the "Gullible 'R Us" club. ;) -LOL.Btw, my grandad was a pow in WW2. I nearly had a brain tumor twice. 2 brain surgeries.

Sticky... your last post was interesting. "But none of this is evidence for a Creator"

WHICH....of course is why, most evangelists point to the resurrection of Christ as the ultimate evidence. The Acts of the Apostles (The book in the Bible) is really the story of the proclamation of the "Resurrected Jesus"..it has also been called 'the Acts of the Holy Spirit'.

All we can do, is point to this central and determinative historical event, and interpret it to you as per the Scriptures.

Paul describes it like this:

<<"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance- that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried,>>

COMMENT. To this point, we have the description of some historical facts. But how strong are they ? I don't know of anyone who disagrees thus far with the history side of things (except Muslims who have a vested theological interest in denying Christs death)

<<that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,>>

COMMENT. Now..here it suddenly becomes awry and spooky......HUH? what's this 'he was raised' ? Lets read on..

<<and that he appeared to Peter,
and then to the Twelve.

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7Then he appeared to James,

then to all the apostles, and last of all

he appeared to me also....>>

COMMENT Note those words "Most of whom are still living"

Perhaps you respond with "Do you seek to make me a Christian in such a short time" ?

and to which I respond..

9Paul replied, "Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

Acts 26... makes interesting reading Sticky.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=26&version=31

One never knows... one's presuppositions might shift :)
-blessings.

Ha ha George, that is a lovely poem.

There are many things beyond my ken I am sure. :)

The world is a beautiful place and there is much joy even in realism. In understanding that we are just one element interacting in our environment. What is more magnificent than looking out over a beautiful sky or a mountain with forests and streams abounding. Or the simple joy in looking at a flower, a bird or a small child with curiosity and wonderment in their eyes. There is richness all around us if we take the time to stop and smell the roses (so to speak).

I was raised as an atheist by two ex-Catholic parents so have never known what it is like to believe in a God of any form (God, Buddha, Mohammed). My mother still had us Christened while she was struggling with her own strong Catholic (Nun schooled) upbringing. We were simply bought up to respect others and our environment, show compassion and treat others as we would wish to be treated (no different from some of the religious teachings).

There is that old saying that there are no atheists in war. That is probably true and I guess that is the point, when people are desperate they grasp onto anything that may provide strength, solace or peace (or meaning). This does not mean that God exists but than man has created something that he believes he needs.

If man needs this...well that is a whole other argument, but for many they are content with the natural state of things.

Yes George, a clever ditty indeed. I cheerfully admit that there's plenty beyond my ken too - which is of course a good reason to continue learning and questioning. What annoys me most about religionists is their collective smug delusion that their "ken" is the right one.

To me, heaven is where I was on Sunday evening - surrounded by almost pristine nature by the side of a mountain stream, with a fishing rod and a few beers and listening to the cricket on the radio. Hell is where I am now, having come down with a god-awful head cold for my sins.

But I'm just a simple man really. Bugger the afterlife, live this one to the full!

stickman by 'intricacies and complexities' you mean there's sh*& load to study...I agree...

anyway...'If that centralized control does not reside in DNA...then where could it be?'

not to become a medical lecture...how did you understand my last post and respond?...yep...used your senses ie vision and your brain interpreted the writing finally processing to an understanding orientated in your time, place and person...right...then you responded with how that connected with your reality and or possible reality...which called intelligence...agree so far...

break down to its basic components...there is a 'sensory'...'processing'...'effecting'...parts that comes about by 'multicellular cooperative interactions'...

before we apply this to 'liver'...to some common misunderstanding 'plants have no intelligence/feelings'...remember the experiment of placing plant in sealed box with light through small hole in side...few days later plant growth has turned itself to light...now apply above...so at some level plant exhibits 'intelligence'...

now same to each liver cell as experiment...so first 'hypothesis' to test is 'does each liver cell sense its and other cells energies and respond to it'[a good starting hypothesis as we know each liver cell does'nt seem to have 'centralized brain' structure in its or among itself]...so like the plant one has to identify an 'energy sensing receptor'...then move on...and if its true then can explains how livers unique shape formed and maintained...bit like our 'eye of energies' or 'third eye'...another experiment there...

now do you see a initial commonness between 'liver cell'-'all cells to form independent body' and between 'men'-'god'...at the fundamental level of 'dealing with energies'...if so then to know god one must develop their 'skill of energy'...and you will learn more about god if such exists...

Sam

I think my son, what you may be looking for; judging by your adjective rich preamble, is the tribal ethic. A definite missing link in our individualistic western culture.

Don’t look to the aboriginal example of tribe. The west stamped that out of them beginning at the time of captain Cook and continue so to do, with its incessant meddling . The greater tribe of Muslim threatens, keep away. And the Mormon with their appearance of isolated tribalism? If left to the Hill-Billy Yankees of old, would also be extinct. Try for the Hippy clan and tug on some forbidden weed. Should get you there. Nimbin maybe, its up your way somewhere!

pelican, CJ Morgan,
I think the point of the quote was not about insights being beyond one’s ken but about deriding insights one cannot understand. I found another translation of the same part, that follows more closely the German original:

We know full well that men deride whate'er
They do not understand
And that before the Good and Fair,
Which of is hard for them, they grumble;

pelican,
Thanks for the sincere words. I for myself grew up in a Stalinist country, was “lucky enough” not to have had any RE, so the rational part of my faith was provided by my father (a lawyer, admirer of Kant and - you guessed it - Goethe), the emotional part by my mother. These early impressions were supported by personal experience - provided by marx-leninist teachers - of how stupid and dangerous is fanaticism, religious or anti-religious.

“When people are desperate they grasp onto anything that may provide strength, solace or peace (or meaning). This does not mean that God exists but than man has created something that he believes he needs.“

No, it does not, but neither does it mean that God is just a figment of the poor person’s imagination. When a patient is very ill he/she will grasp for any means that might provide relief. This could be a “real” medicine or just a placebo. You are right, you cannot imply from the fact that the person thinks he/she “feels better”, that it was a “real“ medicine” - it could have been a placebo. But neither can you conclude, that it must have been a placebo

CJ Morgan,
I can understand very well that you are annoyed by the “smug delusion that their ‘ken‘ is the right one“. There are many world views that I cannot follow. Some of them I think I can understand but disagree with their conclusions. And I also feel annoyed if somebody tries to force them on me, i.e. using terms like logic, evidence etc. when they mean simply common sense, that I know from physics how misleading it can be.

However I resist the temptation to feel smug about my own world view. I mean not only on this OLO, but also for myself. For instance, I try to separate what I can learn from Dawkins about evolution and genetics from that what I think is his delusion about faith and belief in God (not necessarily the same thing), because I could not know what was his personal experience, or lack of it, with religion. Of course, not all atheists are like Dawkins, there are many from whom I can learn nothing, so I just try to ignore them.

One thing 21st Christians are learning fast - where Muslims are still far behind - is not to get offended by anything, because offence, derision, ridicule etc. caries information about the offender not the object of the offence.

I can also share you feelings for heaven (except for cricket) that we can visualise and understand, but that does not exclude the possibility of a state of awareness that we cannot visualise and understand, so we must refer to it simply as afterlife.

Here are some key books for both: believers/probable gullibles & thinkers/questioners/reasoners out there. 1.The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (Kersey Graves) 2.The Faith Healers (James Randi) 3.Some Mistakes of Moses (Robert G. Ingersoll) 4.Suns of God (Acharya S.)

George
Thank you for your views, it sounds like you have had an interesting life.

In regard to your comments about placebos, the thing is in the absence of any other evidence, all we can conclude is that it is a placebo effect. We should not discount the value of the placebo effect whether this be via a strong belief or just the power of positive thinking. The human brain is an amazing organ, as it controls the body it can also affect disease. Similar has been achieved with meditation, macrobiotic diets and other healthy mental or physical exercise. This is similar to an argument you made in another discussion about mathematics and computers. The thing is mathematics exists, there is tangible evidence ie. does not require faith.

One of the risks we take when discussing religion is to offend unintentionally when arguing a particular point of view. I am overtly aware that religious beliefs are very important to some people, and while I don’t intend the airing of my own views to change theirs, what we might be hearing from each other is that a set of values or beliefs don’t matter because they are not real. I guess that is the inevitable consequence of discussions of this nature but one thing is clear - belief systems do matter very much to some people.

Whether or not man needs a belief system to provide a framework for morality and behaviour is a different argument. I remember someone once telling me they went to Church but they did not believe in the existence of God or a higher power but believed in the idea of Religion as an important part of society to provide a structure to morality and a sense of community (or words to that effect). This is a whole other argument but I can see that the argument itself has merit even if I don’t proscribe to all of its components or the way in which this sense of community can be achieved.

Hi George, nice to see you around again.

This comment of yours intrigued me:
"One thing 21st Christians are learning fast - where Muslims are still far behind - is not to get offended by anything, because offence, derision, ridicule etc. caries information about the offender not the object of the offence."

I agree with this, with the caveat that Christianity has more or less been forced to this position through centuries of Western enlightenment, for want of a better word. Such forbearance of counter views to Christianity has not always been thus.

More interestingly though, surely you would agree that certain ridicule of religion and the religious is warranted, deserved and indeed plays a useful role?

Example - the Danish cartoons. I have seen them all, did not think all were particularly funny, but the one that showed a frantic bearded man (Mohammed?) at the Muslim equivalent of the pearly gates, saying:
"Stop it! We've run out of virgins" was absolutely priceless.

Funny, accurate, merciless satire. Those that either believe or seek to convince others that the reward for mass murder via suicide bombing is 72 dark-eyed virgins, deserve to be pilloried. Don't they? And as such, derision and ridicule can reflect very well on the author and sharply skewer the maniacal and the hypocritical.

pelican,
“in the absence of any other evidence, all we can conclude...”. I think the crucial point here is that this “evidence” depends on the “we”.

Even under scientific evidence, or absence of it, one understood something different, say, 200 years go and today. Nevertheless, at a certain stage in history (within a certain paradigm, if you like Thomas Kuhn‘s terminology) scientists can more or less agree on what constitutes evidence. And by now at least the physicists have learned that “common sense” (that guides the naive believer as well as unbeliever), is not a good judge of what is and what is not irrefutable evidence.

However, this universal (though time dependent) acceptance of what evidence means is not so straightforward when a wider range of phenomena, cultural determinants, tradition and personal experiences, are involved: what is an acceptable evidence for me, with my set of insights, and personal experience, might not constitute evidence for you, from your point of view, with your life experience. And vice versa. So I can agree with you only if by “evidence” you mean “scientific evidence as understood by contemporary scientists.”

I personally believe that there will never be - could never be - scientific evidence for the existence of a God as modelled e.g. by Christian theology, but that is a different matter, a different belief.

I can more or less agree with the rest of what you wrote. I see my world view - which I think fits within what one could call Christian - as an extension, not a rejection of a serious areligious (secular) world view. When looking at a beautiful scenery I do not disagree with what a colour blind person tells me he/she can see. I am just aware of the extra experience that he/she cannot have. Nevertheless, I admit there can be conflicts between a religious outlook and an atheist or agnostic outlook: they are caused by a naive approach to religion (and/or science), both from within and from without, though in the latter case it is often intention rather than just naivete.

Hi stickman, nice of you to remember me.
“Christianity has more or less been forced to this position (of not getting easily offended) through centuries of Western enlightenment,“

You are confusing two things.

The Church (not Christianity) was forced to ACCEPT CRITICISM through Enlightenment, born out of Christianity’s own “womb”: the genes of most Enlightenment protagonists can be traced back to some pious mediaeval Christian forefather. Enlightenment is a correction to Christianity not forced on it from outside, from a different - say Chinese, Aztec or what - civilisation. Christianity, so to say, created its own antithesis, to interact with it, and in the process to arrive painfully at its own, healthier, synthesis. The process is far from completed. (This is different from biology, where intercourse with one’s own offspring, incest, usually does not lead to a healthy “synthesis”.) This is one thing.

Another thing is the so-called RIGHT TO OFFEND. This is nothing any healthy society, can sustain. I can enjoy all sorts of human rights, but abusing or making fun of your parents, your ethnic origin, your race, sexual orientation, religion etc., whatever YOU (not I) hold sacred, whatever offends YOU (irrespective of how funny I find it) cannot be one of my rights. So I do not agree “that certain ridicule of (these things including) religion ... is warranted,... plays a useful role.“ Criticism yes, ridicule, offence no. Given some strong reasons to criticise, to say something unpleasant about your family, race, sexual orientation, religion etc., I might try to present them to you. But never ridicule or express criticism with an intention to offend.

If somebody offends you, you can react in three ways:
(1) become aggressive, retaliate, offend back, or
(2) ignore the offender, or
(3) feel sorry for the attacker, or better, try to understand his mental state that forces him to act in that way.

The first reaction - that unfortunately some Christians and many Muslims are still stuck with - is irrational, the second one is rational and the third reaction, that we all should aim for, is charitable.

George, I hope you did not think I was arguing that we have a right to offend. I meant that sometimes arguing one point of view it is inevitable that some might be offended because, to be blunt, the presumption from both sides of the debate is that the other is deluded even if it is only implied. This does not mean that we cannot respect the other point of view and accept that as you said, people's experiences are different and this is what shapes our values and beliefs.

I hope I did not offend you inadvertently. I like the way you express yourself in an intelligent and charismatic way and do respect your opinions.

Thanks Apis, for backing and making more clear the importance of the need for Christian faith to be modified by reason, shown as you said by other Christian Saints besides Aquinas, and as is taught in most of our universities, anyhow.

It was much later in history that John Locke stressed its importance, as Immanuel Kant did much later, though himself a devout Christian, stressing the importance not so much of one personage or one nation under God for perpetual peace, but a federation of nations.

We are faced so much with similar problems today, especially in the Middle East where we have Islam much more fundamental than it became when influenced by the Reasoning that Golden Greek influence had brought to what is now Iran, Egypt, as well as Iraq.

While some blame the Ottomans for the change, others blame us former European barbarians who have overdone Hellenistic Reasoning so much we have forced Islam back into its own Dark Age.

As an Iranian woman judge made comment a couple of years ago. We do believe in democracy, which is indeed a Greek word, but we want our own democracy, not fashioned in the American Way.

Could suggest more of the wisdom and understanding so much acquired from the gifts of Greek Reasoning as well as from Christian faith is what we need so much of right now.

Regards - BB, WA.

Thanks Apis, for backing and making more clear the importance of the need for Christian faith to be modified by reason, shown as you said by other Christian Saints besides Aquinas, and as is taught in most of our universities, anyhow.
It was much later in history that John Locke stressed its importance, as Immanuel Kant did much later, though himself a devout Christian, stressing the importance not so much of one personage or one nation under God for perpetual peace, but a federation of nations.
We are faced so much with similar problems today, especially in the Middle East where we have Islam much more fundamental than it became when influenced by the Reasoning that Golden Greek influence had brought to what is now Iran, Egypt, as well as Iraq.
While some blame the Ottomans for the change, others blame us former European barbarians who have overdone Hellenistic Reasoning so much we have forced Islam back into its own Dark Age.
As an Iranian woman judge made comment a couple of years ago. We do believe In democracy, which is indeed a Greek word, but we want our own democracy, not fashioned in the American Way.
Could suggest more of the wisdom and understanding so much acquired from the gifts of Greek Reasoning as well as from Christian faith is what we need so much of right now.

peilcan,
my comment on offences was a reaction to stickman‘s post; I certainly do not see why I should have been offended by what you wrote. You are right that one could inadvertently offend somebody (I objected only to “criticism WITH AN INTENTION to offend“). Like I could inadvertently step on somebody’s toes. In both cases one simply apologises, and that solves the problem.