Dear Mhaze,

Re creator: whether or not it is worthwhile to meet him, is a matter of personal taste - some feel the urge to see Egypt's pyramids, others do not.

Let us assume that the creator is the only one and was not superseded (that possibility which you mentioned, has not even crossed my mind, besides it would be logically impossible if we assume that the creator also created time), still the question stands whether one ought to love this creator with all one's heart. I see no compelling reason to do so. Other possible and valid responses could be a lukewarm/polite "Thank you Sir" or "So YOU are this bastard who created this flawed world!".

Perhaps (but not necessarily) the creator is also super-intelligent, but is this a good reason to worship him? Is there a good reason to love and worship even super-intelligence itself?

Those who follow the Judeo-Christian tradition find the property of "Creator" endearing, and so they should continue to attribute it to their god. However, not everyone finds it endearing. Similarly, Judeo-Christian followers find "Father" endearing and so they should continue to use it, but those who had an abusive father do not feel the same, thus they should not use this attribute. You seem to find "intelligence" endearing and so you should go along with that.

So you do not like the word 'God' and that's fine. You rather think of Him/Her/It as 'Super Intelligence' or 'Universal Spirit', which are good working assumptions. The Divine, the Absolute, cannot be described in relative terms anyway, but meanwhile having something slightly more tangible/attributeful object that you can pour your love and devotion toward, is very good to have.

Re meditation/prayer: they both work and help us transcend our attachments to the world. A mix of both is probably the best, but it depends on the person and some are naturally more inclined to include more of the one than the other in that mix.

Dear All,

I am sorry for expressing my anger. It gets me no place and helps nobody else. In my reading of history I am angry against most missionaries. I feel they have done much evil while they have thought they were doing good. They are not willing to live and let live. They want other people to feel as they do. Probably they think they are practicing the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That does not consider that others may not have done to them what you want done to you. The missionary may think that if he or she were not a Christian she or he would want somebody to make them a Christian. The object of their attention may not want that at all. I think that trying to put yourself in the other fellow's shoes is a better idea, but it is still not a good idea. The other fellow may want some horrible things that you think are wrong. Sometimes the Golden Rule is a good idea. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes putting yourself in the other fellow's shoes is a good idea. Sometimes it isn't.

NNS wrote: "I am for approaching Christianity at all in a positive manner."

I don't think he was. To me approaching Christianity in a positive manner would not be to be a missionary but to do good works inspired by Christianity. However, who is to say what are good works? What are defined as good works by me would not be defined as good works by somebody else.

I still think the ancient philosophies of Stoicism, Epicureanism and Cynicism are preferable to any religion I know of. If I had incorporated them into my thinking I would not have been angry.

mhaze,

As you ponder your response to me, I thought I’d provide you with a couple of links that might help you to better understand the difference between belief and knowledge, in this context:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xYfdTNkmGE&t=19 (Spoiler: the caller ‘gets it’ in the end.)
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

Although, I’m not entirely sure you really need them. Given your past dealings with me, one could be forgiven for suspecting that you just want to make me look like some fool who is unable to see shades of grey and doesn’t have the nous to understand that ‘I don’t know’ is a perfectly acceptable response.

Speaking of which, here are some more instances of me advocating for ‘I don’t know’ as a possible, and sometimes more honest, answer:

“How do I not know that I’m just a brain in a vat? ... the simple answer is that I don’t know.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8084#250948)

“... what’s the more honest approach to this problem… 1. Admit that you don’t know, and accept that you may never know, or; 2. Make something up?’” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814#94047)

“But anyone who cares about their beliefs being true would sooner say, “I don't know”, than assume that an invisible magician did it.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10306#168328)

You really need to learn to think more carefully before you try to slander others with assumptions about how they think. This tactic of yours keeps backfiring on you spectacularly.

Anyway, I eagerly await your response with regards to what it is that you weighed up to determine the chances of the existence of something which you insist is unknowable.

Dear Josephus, I try to limit what I believe. However, I believe Christianity is evil. If I am a moral person it is my duty to oppose evil. However, if I oppose evil I am not practicing "Live and let live". So two moral imperatives conflict. What a dilemma.

david f, Tell your attitudes to the converted Papuan head hunters, "were the missionaries evil?" Tell your attitudes to the Aucha Indians in South America, "were the missionaries you murdered on initial contact evil?" With missionaries came written languages of the people and contact with the outside World. Your gunboat missionaries are non existent in the last 200 years, except for Islamification. Christianity is a personal free choice otherwise it is not Christianity

Josephus wrote: "Christianity is a personal free choice otherwise it is not Christianity." That remark is not consistent with Christian history. What happened when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. I repeat matter I previously posted. "The Christian persecution of Roman religion under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign in the Eastern Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on former customs of Roman religion, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of magistrates who did not enforce laws against polytheism, broke up some pagan associations and tolerated attacks on Roman temples. Between 389–392 he promulgated the "Theodosian decrees" (instituting a major change in his religious policies), which removed non-Nicene Christians from church office and abolished the last remaining expressions of Roman religion by making its holidays into workdays, banned blood sacrifices, closed Roman temples, confiscated temple endowments and disbanded the Vestal Virgins. The practices of taking auspices and witchcraft were punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as asked by non-Christian senators. In 392 he became sole emperor (the last one ...). From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while non-Christians continued to request toleration, he ordered, authorized, or at least failed to punish, the closure or destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the empire. In 393 he issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any public non-Christian religious customs, and was particularly oppressive to Manicheans. He is likely to have disbanded the ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration was in 393, though archeological evidence indicates that some games were still held after this date." Theodosius persecuted Christians who didn't follow his branch of Christianity. Considerable coercion and a lack of free choice there. That pattern has been followed to this day. Aborigines in missions were forbidden to practice their religion. You deny the horrors of the spread of Christianity. There are many books on the subject. Christianity remains evil.