Okay, while I was out for a nice little walk, I happened to be approached by these Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints or something to that effect. Now here is how the conversation went. Lindsay, you may be offended by this, however its time to take the sheep out to pasture (right lucid? lol)

Moron - Hello sir, have you heard of Jesus Christ
Max - Yea..
Moron - Are you familiar with the bible?
Max - I grew up in a catholic school
Moron - Have you spoken to someone from the Church of latterday Saints
Max - I think so, let me guess you guys think your god is the right one and everyone else needs to find him
Moron - Well im here to bring the fullness of god, our church has the full god
Max - What about other religions who say their god is right? What proof is their that your god exists?
Moron - You know about the prophets and becoming enlightened right? See the prophets would be chosen by God and God would speak through them, this is how we know about god.
Max - But what about the prophets from other religions, how do we know that your prophets are correct and theirs are not?
Moron - Their is only one god, we have the richness and fullness of god
Max - Okay.. then how do you know that he exists?
Moron - Have you ever read the bible or prayed?
Max - Yes
Moron - And when you pray you can hear god speaking to you
Max - Ive never heard him
Moron - Well can you see images or had thoughts while praying?
Max - Yea but how do you know that the sub-conscious is not simply bringing those thoughts to your conscious mind, prehaps in order to fufill unconsious desires
Moron - But who made that conscious? Sir we could argue about that all day, do you think you would be intrested in reading the book of mormon?
Max - No, god is just a way of making people feel better about death.
Moron - Well I dont believe that, I hope you find a religion and god someday sir
Max - Okay, bye

The conversation was a bit longer and I had a few other good questions, some he just ignored and said there was an argument but then he didnt state it and instead just went on about how great his little mormony book was. In the words of Nieztchez, "Has he not heard? God is dead"

Anyways, if you feel like arguing about religion, heres a good place to do it. There is a lecture going on soon at the University claiming that their is scientific evidence about the existance of god, im thinking about going, it could be something to amuse me. The mormons were not even a challenge... Ive been on brainmeta so long and talked about this subject so much, there petty counterarguments seemed childish compared to those made on brainmeta.

Mormons are usually perfectionists and develop many admirable qualities, ridiculous though their beliefs may be

Richard Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion, is a good resource for these kinds of arguments.

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

Dawkins was on The Colbert Report recently. Exceptionally good.

Im a perfectionist and im not a mormon, nor am I religious. If your going to generalize.. fine, but show me some proof of your generalizations. I used to live next door to mormons, they were nice, quiet people, they were elderly so I do not know how much of a ruckus they could have caused anyways. However, they seemed to have strong community ties.. but, certain practices of mormon culture are similar to cult indoctrication techniques. They came up in my studies while I was doing cult investigations and diffrent psychological patterns they attribute to.



Yea I enjoy The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, thing is they are not taken seriously by the general media so they have a certain journalistic freedom to talk about what they want, how they want to. I will have to see if I can find that book, thanks Rick.

I didn't say perfectionists are mormons, I said mormons are usually perfectionists, which is based on my experience of having gone to school with a lot of them.

Agreed--I have many mormon friends, and from my travels I have spent a good amount of time in the Salt Lake/Provo area. It does seem like true mormons are perfectionists. There are many who claim to be mormon yet do not follow the beliefs, which I guess is true for most "religious people". I have yet to encounter a Catholic who actually lives up to their beliefs, but I have infact had Mormon friends who have never take drugs, have never slept with anyone, have never done much of anything outside of serving their community really. I was going to take classes at Brigham Young, but I couldn't stand the underlying mormon philosophy that is present in all of the curriculum

If people were really perfectionists, then they would determine to root out of their own minds the false beliefs that they hold.

very true but then in another sense, to call one belief false implies that there is some truth. If you know the root of that truth I would love to know. Maybe we shouldn't be looking at religions as different set of beliefs but rather different ways of life. Personaly I would love to be able to fall back on religion--the though that my life is finite is very scary, and it is also troubling to know that even if don't die for hundreds of years (in my opinion as long as you memory is alive you are alive) at some point nuclear war could break out and everything be destroyed. Then what did my life really matter at all? That is a scary thought to me. I really envy religious people to some extent that they are content with this unfounded idea that they will be saved.

It's more important to disbelieve false things than it is to believe true ones. Isn't envying religious people their comfort a little like envying the heroin addicts theirs?

The truth, is an opinion.

Offended? Not in the least, Max. I rather enjoy discussing religion, the Bible, theology, philosophy/psychology/pneumatology of religion as long as it is kept on a rational and non-judgmental level--devoid of rancour, diatribe and argumentum ad hominems.

In my opinion, I respect any religion, including positive atheism, which values and advocates a high level of morality, ethics, law, order, social justice and just being kind to one another.

BY THE WAY, I HAVE DONE THE FOLLOWING EXPERIMENT IN PRAYER, MORE THAN ONCE WITH MORMONS, AND WITH OTHER THAN MORMONS
Whenever I talk with Mormons--they usually travel in pairs--or others wanting to convert me--after I get them to agree to be open with me, and to disagree, agreeably, I listen to their pitch. Then I ask them if they accept the teachings of JC in the Gospels. They, invariably respond: "We do!"

Then I ask them to open the Bible and read Matthew 18:19. There, Jesus says that God will answer any prayer made by two or more, who make it in his name. Then I ask: "Do you believe Jesus meant what he said? And, are you willing to pray for me?" Naturally, they always say, "Yes..."

Then, assuring them of my sincere intentions, I ask them: "If the Mormon faith is the one true faith, I want you to pray for my conversion to it. I trust you are in touch with God and Jesus." I even agree to add words of my own, if they wish. I further assure them: "For sure, If I hear GØD speak to me, I will become a Mormon. Then I add: Even if I only get a strong feeling that the Mormon faith is the one true faith, I will take it seriously, and explore it's claims." I have already done this with several doctrinaire religions, including Roman Catholicism.

AFTER THEY GET OVER THE SHOCK
Usually, they are very surprised that I am so willing to have them do this, to actually pray for and with me. They eagerly comply with my request. And I always say, "Amen!" when the prayer is over.

Then I usually respond as follows: "I certainly did not hear GØD speak to me; nor did I feel any strong urge to leave the United Church faith--non-doctrinaire--in which I was raised. This could mean that there is no god; or that God is not interested in our little problems--Deists believe this. Or, it could mean that GØD wants each of us to live, in our own way, as long as it is lovingly done, each with our enriching differences. Until I hear from GØD, otherwise, I prefer to believe that the latter is true."

One day one young Mormon said: "This is the first time we have been welcomed and challenged in this way. It is kind of making me think..."

I said, "Keep on thinking. But do not be afraid to think for yourself. In a society where people are all expected to think alike, it is usually true that no one thinks at all..." With a smile on my face I added, "At the end of the prayer, I was almost tempted to shout, MY GOD! I'm a Mormon!!!"

We parted friends.

I have often wondered if the thinking Mormon remained a faithful one.
--------------------------------------------000000000000000000000000000=================

A good point; however, a heroin addict does not take the drugs to cope with death, but rather life. I respect someone who is religious as much as I respect someone who follows the dogma of governments--it is not the path in life that I choose to live, but if it helps them find comfort so be it.

Wikipedia in a Synopsis says In my opinion Einstein was what I call myself, a unitheist. GØD, for me, is the no-thing and the everything, that which is total, universal and all encompassing and, in no way, is "He" a separate and personal being, a Heavenly Father, who hears and answers our prayers.

Contrary to Dawkin's point of view, there are many of us who are highly critical of all religion. This does not prevent us from respecting the contribution made by traditional monotheists. It served me relatively well in the early part of my theological thinking. I also respect honest agnosticism, skepticsim and positive atheism.

However, for now, unitheism is a concept that I find very useful, and I mean this in a very practical way. GØD is as practical to me as gravity, electro-magnetism, as the next breath I take and the space in which I live and move and have my being.

Until something better comes along, here I stand. I do not pray to a god; I tune into, connect with (the root meaning of the Sanskrit, yoga)--the meaning of the Aramaic word, slaha, which we translate as 'pray'--GØD.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA aw Lindsay, you have made my day today, truely this has made my day, I dont know if I could resist the temptation of shouting

OH MY GOD.. HES TALKING TO ME.. but wait... hes saying that you are sinners, and you must be punished! I shall do gods bidding and test his servants strength for this is his will.. now prepare your selves and your asses, for it is gods will that they be kicked.

Man that is such a great way of dealing with mormons, I honestly dont know if I could resist saying that their prayers are being answered though, but its really a great way to handle them.

That's beautiful.

First, my disagreement is that unitheism seems just like another word for pantheism. I haven't heard any alleged property of unitheism that distinguishes it from pantheism.

Second, my disagreement with pantheism is that it is a more complicated model of the universe than atheism and adds no explanatory power. One can know how to be kind without recourse to a hypothetical supernatural.

Rick I have said this before: Unitheism is a doublet of PAN-EN-THEISM, not pantheism--all material things add up to being the same as God. I like it because it is shorter than panentheism and it avoids being confused with pantheism.

HERE IS THE LATEST SUMMARY OF MY THEOLOGY. Beware, it could change, momentarily,

More to come on this, okay? Meanwhile, check out:
http://www.pantheism.net/
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

Even so, it seems to me that saying that something is something includes saying that something is through something.

Essentially, the transitive property is implied I suppose?

BTW, Rick, I very much appreciate the World Pantheism Belief Statement and the preamble to it. I particularly like the statement's flexible nature and its emphasis on the universal right to freedom of religion. I do not agree with # 6, where it states that death is, "the end of our existence as individuals". In my opinion, I do not feel that there is enough evidence to say this. I am glad the statement does not require all pantheists to subscribe to all statements. I presume that it is even possible for a pantheist to believe in divinity (GØD) in one form or another.
http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm

Rick, you say Questions:
What is an "explanatory power?
SUPERNATURAL
What is your definition of "supernatural"?
Barring accident, I believe that I will be alive, as I am now, next year.
Is my belief in the future on earth, belief in the supernatural?
Let me extend that thought: If I died tonight, I believe that it is possible that I will still be alive, in one form or another, next year, and all the years to come. In my opinion, this desire is natural. If I do survive the death of my body I will probably think of it as natural, just as natural as being born and living to the age I am now. Without this belief, life for me, would be truly absurd, meaningless and filled with existential anxiety.

Do you think that surviving the death of the body is un-natural, or supernatural?
As a unitheist, I leave lots of room for surprises and mystery, which I think of as natural. The more I think about it, I can't conceive of anything that I would call "supernatural". Therefore, I have little or no use for the word..

Incidentally, I have mentioned the following before, and some of you may feel that the following is somewhat of an arrogant statement, but here it goes again, anyway. I take the famous Einstein formula, E=mc² and I write it this way: E=mc²+F+H+L (faith, hope and love). In even a shorter form it could be E=mc²+I, where I stands for imagination, which Einstein said, "...is more important than knowledge".

In my opinion this will tend to create a unified field in which all things we imagine possible can and will become possible. Could this be the "Universe On a T-Shirt" (book by Dan Falk), about TOE--the elusive theory of everything?

About the Unified Field Theory, from Wikipedia
===========

My only problem with the formula is the fact that faith, hope, and love are intangible. The equation is also not universal. i.e. I do not poses faith, and I have no reason to be hopeful. I do like the concept though

E=mc²+F+H+L (faith, hope and love)??

Please, don't try to mix fluffy nonsense with scientific sense

The only supernatural thing I know of, is when you push one of your eyeballs to one side you see two different worlds.

I have experienced something of the super natural--a sense of destiny. I guess it can easily be explain as drive and ambition

sounds very natural to me

Did Einstein call imagination 'nonsense'? I think Not!! Incidentally, using a hypnotic technique, the faith of any group, or individual, can be measured. I have done it.

I would love to try this technique~ how exactly can you quantitatively measure faith? I suspect my score would be negative :-/

I never said he did. I'm aware of Einstein's position on the value of imagination. It was your ridicule of profound equations of Nature that I responded to.

E=mc² means something, scientifically, whereas E=mc²+F+H+L (faith, hope and love) is just fluffy foolishness speaking.

Here's one: how about
Faith + Unity + Compassion + Knowledge = Yahweh, Omnipotent Universe!
It's very profound when you write out the first letters in equation form. Does that mean something to you? It's a real deep T-R-U-T-H, the answer to the mystery of mysteries.

Maybe I need to add more L to the equation.

~GØD

Flex asks As you know, because the whole process has a lot to do with imagination, visualization, meditation and faith, I prefer to call the technique 'pneumatherapy', not 'hypnotherapy', which I feel tends to be manipulative.

Interestingly, pneumatherapy can actually be done over the phone, or using the recorded voice. Perhaps you should PM me for more information. If you prefer the personal approach, let me know if you can find someone in your area who is a qualified and reliable hypnotherapist.

BTW, I checked out your link. Interesting. At 17, I presume you are still in high school, right? How are your studies going? Life plans and relationships?

BTW 2, Interesting, controversial and amusing posts, by LD, eh? Actually, I like his formula. Very imaginative!!!

But seriously, regarding my adding to Einstein's formula: ridicule was furthest from my mind.

Lindsay, I was joking in my formula and know you didn't intend to ridicule

Exactly - you got it!

The whole point of having models of reality is to explain, or help us understand reality. A more complicated model that does not add to understanding is ridiculous.

Something "supernatural" is something outside of nature. There is no credible evidence for any supernatural phenomena. Emotions and feelings are not supernatural. Dreams and fantastical thinking are not supernatural. If something exists, it is part of nature. There are no gods or demons, except in people's fantasies, and those are not real, except as mental constructions.

Desiring to believe in personal immortality is very understandable in light of the hardwiring of animal brains to fear death. But just because it's understandable as a human weakness doesn't mean that everyone ought to succumb to it. Some of us can exercise free will and use understanding of our own nature to rise above it. Finding comfort in an unrealistic belief is similar in some way to finding comfort in heroin.

Wishful thinking is a very common human weakness. So common, that resisting it ought to be taught in school. For example, George Bush's thinking that illegally invading Iraq was a good idea and would be a cakewalk is a classic example of fallacious wishful thinking. Had George (and his voting American enablers) been smarter, the world would be a better place today.

Rick Generally speaking, I agree with you. What I hear you saying is: Nature, is the only reality. It is the totality of all that is real--in and of itself--and cannot be a part of anything else called the supernatural. In nature all that we call "things" exist. That is, in nature, inanimate things exist, and animate things, "live and move and have their being" (St.Paul defining God).

If this is true, then, in my opinion, what you call "nature" is what I call GØD. I think of GØD as the total, indivisible, and all-encompassing unit of all that is. This means that I could be quite happy calling myself a "unitist", and a student of unitology. This nicely gets rid of having to use "theism"--the god word--

BTW, would it not be proper to capitalize Nature?

That is the precise definition of pantheism. Making up new words where they are not needed causes confusion and does a disservice to everyone. That harm is unnecessary, and therefore, by my definition, evil.

I guess the best way to describe my current possition would be through my personal statement for Penn State (they have a 1200 character limit including spaces so I was forced to get to the point )

I never follow the footsteps of conformity. During high school I abandoned the traditional educational model to forge my own path; I left high school in favor of middle college, all the while continuing high school water polo and wrestling. My wrestling coach, Coach Parks, was more to me than just a coach—he was a mentor. He taught me that “service to others is the price we pay for living”, and I took those words, as well as many others, to heart. I graduated high school in 2006, a year early with 23 college units completed. I am now working on establishing a career in order to have the means to serve and make an impact on the world. The last six months, I have been working as a national tour manager for Sony recording artist Ronnie Day. I did not want to abandon my education to pursue a career, thus I decided to continue online. In my life, “I have never let schooling interfere with my education” (Mark Twain) and I am not starting now. I realize that many of the tools for success only can be obtained through experience, but I also see the need for a formal education. I believe taking Penn State courses online is the best way to advance my career, my education, and my life.

That basically describes my life plans. I just filed the paper work for my own LLC and I have a much more detailed 10 year plan, but I don't think this forum is the place for that As far as relationships are concerned, I don't have time to commit, and thus I think it would be unfair to the girl, so no relationships for me for the next 5-10 yrs.

Prehaps someone can help me put a word on my belief~ I believe that ones body is just a compilation of organic mater. The body is nothing more than a machiene. It is the mind which makes a body alive. When I go to open casket funerals I look in the coffin and see nothing but a body. Just like a car without a driver is nothing more than a pile of metal. I believe that imagination is the essence of what some like to call God. The ability to think and create to me is my direct connection to the divine (which isn't so divine). I guess it could be expressed as something to the extent of cogito ergo sum deus (I know very little of anything other than english, I hope that made sense).

"I don't know what happens when people die. I can't seem to grasp it as hards as I try. It is like a song playing right in my ear, that I can't sing, but I can't help but listen anyways" -Jackson Browne

I too don't know what happens when people die, so I deal with what I do know~ The only after life I believe in comes through thought. I belive that so long as ones memory is alive, they never truely die. It is for this reason that I fear physical death so much. I have a hard time coping with the fact that life is finite, and that I only have a short time to forge a legacy ensuring an afterlife.

I know I didn't explain myself very well just now, I will go into more of the logic behind my beliefs some other time. For now I would just like to know what term is assigned to my set of beliefs.

I think you're identifying Lindsays personalized GØD (God) according to his beliefs, and or the need to project his unification of religious ideals and open mindedness.
There is no one way to contain God in the new age approach to spirituality so those that wish to present their own labels in representation of Unification have a need and a purpose in creating the image of not being associated with any limited perspective.



The need to set ones self apart is simply ego which in some ancient teachings is called evil, but the reality of God in the manifest is that it cannot be contained in a single expression.
It is a necessary part of self realization to recognize the need of the ego to attach itself to definitions and also the diversity of God in the manifest to appear in more than one form and to be defined and recognized in an infinite number of ways.

I'm still finding a certain entertainment value in a idea of faith measurement. This much God....

About pantheism. Dictionary.com defines the noun, pantheism as :
1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.
3. World Book defines it as, "the worship of the gods of all creeds".
=================================================
SYMBIOTIC PANENTHEISM
Interesting. Without contradicting it, it is a step beyond, and more complex than, pantheism. I make no pretense that I understand it, but I like exploring it:
http://www.panentheism.com/
Introduction


ABOUT APHORISMS, and then some...
http://www.panentheism.com/Pages/004.html

I like to think of myself as a piece of the magnificent puzzle, GØD. And that, guided by what I believe, I am having a great time trying to find out, in relation to all the other pieces, where I fit in. Do you mind if I think of you, and others here, in the same way? as a piece of GØD?

BTW, it is nice to ponder that no puzzle is complete without all its parts.

GØD, segmented into its parts?

God incomplete, and mental masturbation...

Is it possible to know a GØD from a few segmented parts of a GØD, entertaining the thought that a GØD is an incomplete GØD without all its parts? Also by measuring Faith in the individual is the measure of GØD in a single part greater or less than another?

i am reminded of broken mirrors.

Why bother trying to define your belief? Does it really matter in the end? And do you want to be labelled by someones elses interpretation of how/what you believe?

I too like you believe that this time is finite. Nothing hereafter and if by some chance there is more then I reckon it will all be good anyway.

The problem comes in when religious folks start trying to compartmentalize their god(s) and basically work as marketing agents for their beliefs, whilst trying to sell some salvation on the side for us lost ones. Life and then Death...no more no less. I have always thought that most religion is egocentric, based on the fear of death and the self illusion that there must be something more for our species.

Rick



Linday do you believe that your god or whichever is your preference GØD, created this earth/universe?
To me what you are saying, adds up to you being a taoist.

Thanks for the compliment. Buddhists have told me, "You sound like a Tibetan Buddhist, especially the Zen kind." I also have a lot in common with Sufism--a branch of Islam, practiced by my daughter-in-law--Yogism, Vedic Hinduism and many other kinds of religious philosophy, including Christianity in its universal sense. Check out:
http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/ccpc/ccpc8points.aspx
http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

I respect any religious philosophy which emphasizes the value of being inclusive, which advocates the building of bridges, not the digging doctrinal ditches. This is what I had in mind when I challenged the Mormon missionaries' philosophy. They preached that they had the exclusive hold on the Truth of God.

You mentioned, "Linday do you believe that your god...?"

I don't think of myself as having a god. GØD, in my opinion, is the self-evident whole--something I experience without having to prove--which has me. Anyone, who freely chooses to do so, can make the same claim.

When I used the puzzle metaphor and said that I think of myself as being a "piece" of the magnificent puzzle I call, GØD, perhaps I should have used the term "component", which means an essential piece, or part. I think of myself as having what I think of as a symbiotic relationship with GØD. In my humble opinion, GØD and the physical universe need each other. This is why I like the term, "symbiotic panentheism", which I call, for short, unitheism.

Q. How many Mormons does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. Seven. One to change the lightbulb, one to say the opening prayer,
one to say the closing prayer, and four to bring green Jell-o salads
and red punch (???? Does anyone know why this is funny?). No coffee,
tea, wine or other enjoyable drinks, please. Especially, no Martinis!!!

Q. How many agnostics does it take to change a light bulb?
A. We can't know.

Q. How many unitheists?
A. Your guess is as good as mine! But only if you agree to convert.

egocentrism is incompatible with God

Another of these 'How many's' I saw was:-

"How many illuminations does it take to enable those with a Faith to see the Truth"?

"None, because they have their eyes closed"!

How so? Why could not one be his/her own god? As far as I can see I am capable of creation. For all I know the tangible world could just be an illusion of my mind. In my opinion, I am my own day-to-day god. I don't know what or who started the universe in motion, nor does anyone else, so to say that there is or isn't a god is just opinion, but I know I am have imagination, and I am keeping my life and thoughts in motion--as far as I am concerned I hold more power than any conventional god.

because individuality, personal history, personality, and the ego obscure what we are, which is a universal consciousness that transcends the individual. We are the universe awakening to itself. The sense of individuality and confinement to the body is an illusion.