http://weirdindia.blogspot.com/2006/11/man...call-it_30.html

http://wakan.com/projects/coach_parks.htm

This is also what religion leads some people to do~ And I am glad it does (it has changed my life for the better).

Religion doesn't make any one do anything.
But ignorance often leads people to think so. Superstition, that kinda thing....

You're so predictable. Go back to the discussion on free will.

The blind leading the blind ...

facts like that are hard to argue with. But I missed the part of the article where it mention his actions as a product of religion or caused due to religious believes. Or what religion, for that matter. maybe you know more about this guy than we do.

Seems freedom of choice is always in ones mind.



No, the blind leading themselves through darkness and others of like mind making the same choice.

I guess the question most pertinent in this dialogue is at what point does one become impervious to being manipulated by another?

The article doesn't mention it (his religion), but he is a personal friend/mentor of mine. He does a lot more for the community than the article touches on as well.

Today, I heard a broadcaster--a Christian preacher from a radio station in Oklahoma--refer to a recent well-researched survey, which points out that more and more North Americans are following the trend in Europe (most Europeans are secularists) and are leaving the established churches--Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. Even French and RC Quebec has experienced a dramatic drop off of regular church attendance.

To this I can add my personal experience. After serving one church, in North Toronto, for over 20 years, I retired in 1994. In the last third of my ministry I saw a steady decline in attendance, on Sunday mornings.

Interestingly, the church which I served was successful in having an increase of mid-week activities--things I heartily endorsed. A lot of our income which supported the church and extra staff, came from mid-week community groups--including seniors activities, music programs, youth activities, ethnic groups, holistic health programs, AA programs, meditation programs (my personal interest) and yoga and nutrition classes.

In my recent visit to Florida I noticed that a church (the church has over 2000 seats) that I have attended for years used to have a choir of 300 members. On the two Sundays which I attended recently, there were less than 70 members in the choir and the church was less than half full. Mostly seniors, including many Canadian snow birds, who attend in winter. Things are changing.

Maybe it would be a good time to start secular fellowship clubs to do the things in the community that churches used to do.

Good idea, Rick. In his book, The Third Wave--it was written for the 1980's--Alvin Toffler wrote about this. I did this while I was at North Toronto--1966 to 1994. It worked.

Now that I live in re-directment, in Markham, ON, the pattern continues. This is what we are doing at
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca Now in it second year, it was filled yesterday. People who are curious and willing to dialogue, without rancour, are welcome.

That looks very non-secular. The term "Christian" was the give-away.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN ATHEISTS, by Chris Hedges
========================================
How many have heard of the work of Chris Hedges? He is a widely respected journalist (New York Times). The son of a Presbyterian minister, he is also a graduate of the Harvard Divinity School. Without being ordained, he took up the career of journalism. As a journalist in war zones, more than once he was close to losing his life. BTW, his books are not pro-church tomes.

In his book, I Don't Believe in Atheists, he gives us a very interesting perspective on what is going on in the current dialogues and debates about God and religion. He writes and says that the "new atheists" and the "Christian Right" both advocate vapid, shallow and simplistic notions of little social value. Both are equally capable of fostering dangerous and destructive concepts.

The following links contain scripts and videos featuring Chris Hedges, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others.
=======================================================
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200705...ve_in_atheists/

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070...d_of_the_world/

It seems to me like the usual crop of platitudes and nonesense. Rather than a "highly abstract" concept of god, people are better off with the atheistic conception. Life and humankind are the important things, not mytical gods. We need to free ourselves from dependence on these childish notions.

I agree. GØD, which includes that which is total, universal and all-encompassing, is as real as Nature--in all its physical and glorious splendour; its mental knowledge and wisdom, and its spiritually artistic creativity.

Can we get away from calling it gee oh dee? That would help dialog a lot.

What do you prefer? Nature? God? Orthodox Jews use G-d. I have no problem dialoguing about the physical, mental and spiritual nature of Nature.

How about "Ø"?

Joesus calls it "the absolute." Calling it "nature" is OK. Sometimes I call it the universe.

How do you form the distinction between the mental and spiritual? To me, the spiritual is a special kind of mental, not deserving of its own distinct category.

I like using God, personally. The fact that people have an aversion to a word and try to come up with another to fit their personal diagnosis of whatever they want something to look like only seems to reinforce the need to individualize their thoughts from others, and to place their word above the judgment that they have about others beliefs.
The need to remove irritating external subject matter always precedes the evolution of compassion and wisdom where one actually rises above the judgments of the object of perception as being the cause of ones irritation rather than ones attachments and aversions that are ones own internal beliefs and programs.

I heard someone say the other day, "I hate when people talk about God 'nshit." The 'nshit would be the attachments or corresponding thoughts that follow the word that each individual has inside of them as layered thoughts or neural pathways of subjective beliefs.
Generally speaking the first reaction to self maintained programs when they activate is to remove the subject rather than the conditioning. In the matter of stagnation rather than evolution one then lives with the dis-ease of being vulnerable to random appearances of external subjects that stimulate internal programs creating what Jesus called Hell.
Heaven then by an lesser evolved interpretation was determined to be a world outside of the world of reality, one that came after the world of beliefs and thoughts, one that came after the death of the world of stimuli, filled with objects of perception created by individuals who had irritating ways and beliefs. A world where God was in charge and one that was protective of ones own individuality, where everyone could have their own beliefs basking in the radiance of eternal support.
The more evolved version would be that Heaven was not in the afterlife but in the here and now, where freedom from attachments to personal points of view and belief created acceptance rather than aversion. A world filled with gratitude and praise rather than division and lines in the sand.

I think the reason God is so universally understood is that it survives the need to individualize and inspires the choice to individualize and unite at the same time. It stimulates the desire to know what is behind the word and also the choice to ignore whatever is behind the word. In this respect it has more meaning to it than a name for a something or nothing or all. It has a nature to it that drives one to evolve or devolve.

I try to avoid it because it might make people think that I think that I know what I'm talking about. Avoiding misleading people is important to me.

Another difficulty I see with that word is that it means such different things to different religions. It therefore facilitates people talking past each other and wasting their time, something too easy to do anyway.

I certainly agree that it is important not to mislead people. This is why I am trying to get across the idea that the Universe is impersonal. In my opinion, the Universe simply IS. What me make of it, for good or ill, is up to us. Rick, you add This is why I ask posters: What do you have in mind when you write "God"? BTW, for me, enjoyable dialogue is never a waste of time.

That's all the more reason to avoid the term "God." Most people take it to refer to a person(al) entity, compounding the confusion.

Spinoza said that to regard the union of the universe and God to be greater than the universe was nonsense. He was right. Hence, the term "God" adds no meaning to the dialogue, but usually distracts attention from important concepts.

Codependent thinking or Fear of stepping into another's territorial beliefs used to keep me from freely expressing also, but I learned that you can't avoid people and their thoughts unless you remove yourself into isolation. I also found if you give yourself permission to feel and express it's just as easy to allow others to feel and express. Once you create this freedom people are less likely to immerse themselves into their beliefs and try to protect them. Once the fear of attack is removed objectivity sets in and conversations become less personal and defensive, and more conscious and expanding.

It also inspires those who aren't so tied to the beliefs of definition to look deeper into something than to take for granted any democratic process which dictates dogma.
One simply allows for childish behavior when dealing with children rather than trying to avoid freedom of belief and thought that might move into the realms of diversity that is beyond personal control. This can be difficult for those who have not yet found the capacity to move beyond codependent behavior.

Most people who can't connect to God aren't ready to experience anything other than their thoughts and beliefs, therefor it doesn't matter what word you use once you've fallen into the acceptance of Churchianity you become a supporter for the division energetically as you try to approach each subject with the fear of creating waves.
There is a saying, "Once you accept a problem as reality you become part of the problem."


He is right in the sense that God and the universe are not separate entities. As I said before if you allow for childish behavior from children then there is no harm in speaking Truths that are absolute.
You set a better example by speaking from the Absolute Truth and From God when referring to God rather than to speak about God from a divided concept of God and argue that God has no meaning or place because it has none for you.
Until you fully accept the division that is diversity of expression and belief there can be no union. There can only be your belief and their belief.


The reality of an impersonal universe is that regardless of what we make of it we cannot detract from what it is by the illusions we impose. Therefor to try and isolate meanings and definitions accomplishes nothing really, other than to display in ignorance a need to prevent personal interference with a universe that is not invested in the personal.
We invest ourselves in either trying to define the universe or to try and protect its absolute undefinable reality. By our own beliefs in the separation that exists in the diverse expression of God or the universe we try to act in such a way to create Union rather than to live in its diverse expression as God or the universe.

I admire Spinoza. By the way, I suspect that if he were alive today--a time in which we hear about the new physics and the string theory--he would find a home among panentheists and process theologians like Alfred N. Whitehead. And keep in mind: Jesus said: "I and the Father (the creative Universe) are one". In John 17: 20ff he goes to great length to say that so are we all.

As indicated in my signature, I do avoid using "God". I use an acronym
G0D--notice that here I use the zero instead of O. In no way does this refer to a "person(al) entity".

Just because you spell it weirdly doesn't mean that people won't read it as "God."

Weirdly? Rick, keep in mind: It was you who showed me how to make a Ø �˜ (a null) BTW, thanks!

BTW 2, I refuse to judge the motives of others--unless they choose to reveal them--including yours.

Regarding theology, my motive is as follows: I want for people to think, progressively. That is, I want people to be open to the scientific research--remaining aware of its limitations--and to think in terms of the process of total being, with an openness which includes elements which are physical, mental and spiritual--inclusive of all components.

If you are motivated by the fact that you like to think solely in terms of physicalism, then say so. Then we can always agree to disagree, agreeably. I hope.

QUANTUM PHYSICISTS ARE TALKING LIKE MYSTICS
==============================================
In his book, Programming the Universe, Lloyd contends that the universe itself is one big quantum computer producing what we see around us, and ourselves, as it runs a cosmic program. According to Lloyd, once we understand the laws of physics completely, we will be able to use small-scale quantum computing to understand the universe completely as well.

Lloyd states that we could have the whole universe simulated in a computer in 600 years provided that computational power increases according to Moore's Law. However, Lloyd shows that there are limits to rapid exponential growth in a finite universe, and that it is very unlikely that Moore's Law will be maintained indefinitely.

Lloyd is principal investigator at the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, and directs the Center for Extreme Quantum Information Theory.
==========================================
http://www.rle.mit.edu/rleonline/People/SethLloyd.html
==========================================
At this point, I feel that SL and others mystical physicists are on the right path: Using the creative power of will--for good (Agape) or ill (Misos)--we are creating the kind of universe we choose to create, with every thought we think, word we utter and action we take.

Another example of wishful thinking. I prefer to be more realistic.

As long as it involves thinking, what's wrong with being wishful? Is it not better to think wishfully, than not think at all?

BTW, Rick, I assume you are aware that you are accusing a fellow scientist, Seth Lloyd, of being a wishful thinker?

This prompts me to ask: What is reality, anyway?

No action can be better than wrong action. Wrong action is often prompted by wishful thinking. Bush did exactly this when he invaded Iraq. It would have been better if that wishful idea had not occurred in his pea brain.

Fellow scientists are often the worst offenders in the way of uncritical belief. Take for example the CERN apologists who discard out of hand warnings about the dangers of planetary destruction. Their "safety" arguments are based on really really really hoping that nothing bad will happen. See the related topic concerning the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

Reality is the set of all things that have existence.

Amazing! Are you claiming that a certain few scientists are able to avoid all wrong--all immoral actions? Who tells such scientists what wrong is wrong, and when it is wrong to do nothing at all--IMO, the worst of wrong "actions".

Incidentally, Roman Catholicism claims that that the Pope is infallible (in matters of faith and morals.) In matters of science and action, are you not claiming something similar for certain scientists?

You warn: "Take for example the CERN apologists who discard out of hand warnings about the dangers of planetary destruction. Their "safety" arguments are based on really really really hoping that nothing bad will happen. See the related topic concerning the Large Hadron Collider at CERN."

HUBRIS. Arrogant pride, the deadliest of all sins
======================================
I, too, am concerned about arrogantly proud, hubris-filled scientists and physicalists who just could be crazy enough to put our planet at risk in order to stroke their own egos. Hitler's scientists were not above such actions.

You say: "Reality is the set of all things that have existence."
If you mean there is only one reality and it is a physical one, I find that unacceptable.

I feel that physical reality exists within that which is ineffable. BTW, being spiritual, I believe it is beyond any human-made destructive force. I am prepared to accept that we are capable of destroying our physical planet. But I feel that this is not necessarily the end of the experiment we all experience as LIFE.

For more on the above, check out a new thread I am proposing in which I would like to dialogue about the positive role of good religion--and there is such a thing--and the struggle for a moral, ethical, humane and loving way of life--not possible before the evolution of human consciousness, which took place long before the myth of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, 4004 BC, as told in Genesis.

The following is a working title, for now:
Without Good Religion--and there are some awful ones--it is pointless to discuss good, evil, or sin--evil at it worst. Without good religion, there is only relativism and all behaviour is animal behaviour--amoral.

No. I claim that most people suffer (and inflict) from human weakness, including the all-too-common tendency toward wishful thinking.

How do you read "only physical" into my words? Don't you think your thoughts and feelings exist?

Rick asks: "How do you read "only physical" into my words? Don't you think your thoughts and feelings exist?"

Okay, I take it that you accept qualities which are spiritual "things", not just physical things.

You mentioned CERN. The following is interesting. And there is no mention of it being a threat to our planet. If it is a danger, will we ever know? Only if consciousness/spirit survives death of the body and brain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/news...ctid=1466839008

Scientists, in the video just viewed, tell us that strings are particles measuring a billionth, of a billionth, of a billionth of a billionth of a centimetre long?
There are such things? If so, believing in virgin births and the resurrection of bodies is not all that problematic, IMO.

And how about this:
Click on the video PENGUINS TAKE FLIGHT.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/news...ctid=1466839008

The alarmists tell us:
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/s...O7Nz1de1q356s6e

http://lhcconcerns.com/

The Reuters article is fairly good in that it hits many of the major points and counterpoints, but it is still biased in the dismissive direction. So this guy is willing to take a chance with the world? How big a chance is he going to take? How many cylinders in the roulette revolver?

One in a million? What if he's wrong? Not only do we all die, but all who would ever be born in the future will never live. That's a big gamble.

What the Reuters guy misses about the cosmic ray non-argument is that virtually all intersteller particles (including micro-black holes) reaching us are traveling at high speed (otherwise they never get here). The LHC will be creating black holes at less than Earth escape velocity (10,000 meters per second).

Sin, as a noun. World Book Dictionary defines it as:
1. A breaking of the law of God, deliberately.
2. An immoral act; wrongdoing.
========================
COMMISSION & OMISSION
In my opinion there are two kinds of sins: There are sins of commission--the actual doing of harmful things, to self, others, earth and the universe.

And there are sins of omission--the failure to do the good I know I ought to do.

Sin as a verb. My personal definition: I sin, regardless of whether or not there is a god, when I deliberately, and consciously, choose to that which I know is harmful to me, others, the earth and the universe.

I also sin when I refuse to do the good I know I ought to do.

It seems that, on my own, I cannot avoid sinning. This is why I am interested in community building. It is my way of doing as much good as possible. I first learned this as a part of a church fellowship. Churches are, by nature, interested in building communities.

BTW, this brings us to Rick's concern. With him, I certainly hope that our leaders in the world of science want to avoid sin and do that which is good.