The last thread on this general theme, amazingly, had 23,147 clicks and 431 posts. It is found here:
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13719

I will start of this thread with the following quote from (maximus242 @ Nov 19, 2006, 11:35 AM)

QUOTE

Lindsay, you know how I was talking about how sometimes we argue over things, for years? This is one of those topics."This is one of those topics". True, and a cynical one it is.

He is my revised response:

PHYSICALISM--check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ which is an excellent group of essays, including an evaluation, of the topic.
MATERIALISM, SECULAR HUMANISM--THE FAITH OF RICHARD DAWKINS, THE MILITANT ATHEIST AND AUTHOR OF, THE GOD DELUSION?
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
==========================================================================
Here is what I suspect is true: I suspect that most of the posters to this forum are secular humanists, bordering on, if not actual, atheism--I will be glad to be proved wrong. If you are a SH, agnostic, whatever, tell us why. If not, why not?

IS SECULAR HUMANISM AND ATHEISM ONE AND THE SAME?
As I understand it, secular humanists believe that there is no kind of deity and that all life, ultimately, ends in death. What we call mind, soul, spirit evolved from matter and is wholly dependent on it.

As I understand SH it says that life came into being as the result of a cosmic accident and issubject to physical and evolutionary processes. It has no eternal significance. Conscious human beings, along with all other forms of life, including insects, will, eventually, meet the same end: death.

Furthermore, secular humanists believe that all forms of religion is a very destructive for of disease. Secular humanists such as Richard Dawkins take a diabolic delight in bashing those who believe in any kind of god-concept, and that life has any kind of eternal meaning, as deluded imbeciles.

BTW, except for those who slander and libel believers, I accept that it is possible for secular humanists to be moral and ethical in their behaviour. I also think that if there is life after death--about which I am not sure--they will be surprised protagonists.

Because I am not happy with what most traditional theistic religions--God as a personal being, out or up there--have to offer, I would like to see the development of some kind of secular, human and non-dogmatic spirituality capable of imagining that, whether we like it or not, life is an eternal venture. Theistically, I prefer to agree with St. John: "God is love". I am for deeds, not just creeds.

A DIALOGUE IS NOT A DEBATE AND IT IS OKAY TO DISAGREE
Me? I prefer to dialogue about such important matters, not just argue about them. Meanwhile, I would still like an answer to the question: Why do we find this subject so facinating?

Did you hear about the pilgrims who, on their journey, saw two signs? The first one read: THIS WAY TO HEAVEN!
The second one read: THIS WAY TO A DISCUSSION GROUP ABOUT HEAVEN!
The pilgrims loved the fellowship of discussing things so much that they went to the discussion group. smile.

BTW, I kind of like what certain non-theists say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

So because you weren't part of "On The Spiritual Laziness And Gullibility Of Christians, Islamic Sheep, Buddhists, And Others Who Cannot Think For Themselves," and didn't take the time to read it and find out what it was all about, and see what others found interesting about it, you decided to recreate something you think will be similar so you can find out what others think about what you think it was about....


Maybe you should just take the time to read it.
Anyone can make assumptions, and we could all respond to your assumptions of what you think it was about. Or you could just forget about making any assumptions that this new subject/topic has anything remotely similar to the other thread and that you are looking to engage others in a conversation, again.
I remember you saying something to the effect that you are stimulated by getting others to react to your posts so you can entertain yourself by engaging in discussions that create sensationalism.
If we count the times that you have repeated yourself on the subject of who and what you are and what you believe in, I would say that you are addicted to the need for self recognition and any comparisons between yourself and others.

Just a thought...

I pick out a few quotations to which I respond:

I have read many of Dawkins' books, including his latest, The God Delusion, and Dawkins is more dismayed by the foolishness of believers, rather than taking delight in bashing them. Rather than being like a devil, Dawkins is attempting to help society correct itself by pointing out various irrationalities. Perhaps if one should actually read one of Dawkins' books, one's understanding will become truer to reality.

We realists prefer to be evidence-based. There is no evidence for the possibility of existence of life without matter. Therefore, belief in "life" after death appears to the realist to be delusion motivated by a childish wishfulness that rational people eventually outgrow.

Life is an eternal venture only so long as its participants maintain it. We have the capability of exterminating all life. Those who remain delusional in the face of this reality are the ones who endanger life itself. Love of life is intrinsic and requires no false religious construction or establishment. All existing (or possible) religions, being based on error, are distracting at best and dangerous in general.

To keep us on topic:
Rick, as one who truly wants to avoid distraction and the wasting of time, define "wishful thinking", for us. I want to avoid it, religiously

But seriously, surely you are aware that if a long, healthy and happy life is of interest to people--and I have a sneaking feeling that it is--there is ample statistical evidence to show that people who have, and practice, a healthy religion and faith--it matters not the brand, as long as it not hate and fear-based fanaticism--live longer and stay healthier than those who don't.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/...90517064323.htm

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=15459

There are numerous links on the Web about how the close integration of body, mind and spirit makes for a healthier and longer life.
http://www.dukespiritualityandhealth.org/otherlinks/

The Harvard trained medical doctor, Andrew Weil, now heads the Department of Integrative Medicine, at the University of Phoenix, Arizona.
http://integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/index.html
http://integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/clinic/
===============000000000000000================

Mental and physical pain and suffering leading to the ultimate beauty:

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

I would bet that a scientific study could show that athiests who are politically active live longer too.

I personally envy individuals who can accept religion. It would be such a great thing to honestly believe you are ensured wellbeing. I would suspect that atheists who are politically active would not live longer lives, and would live more miserable lives.

The only problem I have with atheism is that well there still must have been some begining (or so I think)? Evolution can be explained from the creation of organic materials from inorganic materials, but this does not explain where the initial materials came from...But I certainly agree that to believe in any convensional gods may be foolish~

Why gamble, Rick Tell us what the research says. If your bet proves to be a winner, I will counter--in a friendly sort of way, of course--that positive and pro-active atheism--not the Nazi and Communist kind, of course--is a form of good and valid religion worthy of respect. Unitarian Christians have respected honest and socially conscious atheism since the 1500's.

Rick, keep in mind that, like Jesus, I have little respect for much that goes on under the name of the so-called organized religions. If there is a personal devil, called the Devil--created by a personal god, called God, of course--I am of the opinion that He works through organizations and institutions run by His power-mongering agents called human beings.

Jesus called the organized religious authorities of his day, hypocrites, "...whited sepulchres filled with the bones of the dead". They were not amused. They organized and arranged to have him arrested, and executed. Read the story; it is in the Book.

I know the story. As I have said before, Jesus taught some great things, but he was very wrong in some ways, particularly his emphasis on the need for uncritical belief. It has done a great disservice to society.

As for the research, I think it shows that active individuals, in general, live longer than the more passive. This goes whether the person is active in church, politics, education, or community development. If one is going to devote energy to a cause, he should choose the best one, one based on evidence and reason.

Jesus emphasized the need for uncritical belief? He did? This is news to me.

Would you document this, please?

BTW, have you converted to atheism?

The New Testament relates several of the parables Jesus was so fond of that glorify uncritical belief. For example, recall the parable of the woman who believed she would be cured by touching the hem of Jesus' robe. Behold, because she believed, so it became. And so on.

There isn't a church of atheism that I know of. One merely applies reason, and one is cured.

Jesus' parable reflects the reality that thought influences time space and matter.
Clear thought and intention. Rationality is such a mechanism tho sometimes not absolute and subject to change.
The universe is sufficiently flexible to accomodate all types of belief whether rational or irrational.

"The universe is sufficiently flexible to accomodate all types of belief whether rational or irrational."

Equally, beliefs are sufficiently flexible to accomodate all types of universe whether rational or irrational.

No, beliefs are points of relative reference and are not capable of being universal to the personal.

Rick, I am sure you have heard of what psychology calls the"the placebo effect" right? What you quote is a perfect example of same.

Then you add: "There isn't a church of atheism that I know of."

Have you never heard of Unitarian Christians and Universalists? Google on UNITARIANISM and UNIVERSALISM.

BTW, The church that I attend accepts people of all faiths, and no faith. It is called Pathways. It is an approved congregation of the United church of canada.

The Web site of the church I attend is http://www.pathwayschurch.ca

"Dismayed"? Rick, 'dismay' means a loss of courage caused by fear. Are you sure this is the word you want to use?

I, TOO, AM ANNOYED AT EMPTY-HEADED RELIGION
Perhaps you mean 'annoyed'--i.e., somewhat troubled, or angry. If so, include me. Like Oscar Wilde, I too find, that it is difficult to suffer fools, gladly.

I admit that I only know RD by what I have read by him on the Web, and from the several reviews which I have read of his recent books. But he comes across as an irrational ranter. I will be happy to be proved wrong.

One reviewer called him "an atheist jihadist". He does not appear to be one who would want to have a meaningful dialogue with theologians like me, for example. Is he really fair?

You say, "We realists prefer to be evidence-based. There is no evidence for the possibility of existence of life without matter." Okay, what evidence is there that matter would exist without life (spirit)?

IMHO, WHAT IS NEEDED IS THE INTEGRATION OF BODY/MIND/SPIRIT
Along with many thinkers, including many esteemed scientists, I believe that it is realistic to accept the integrated concept that we are a complex combination of body/mind/spirit. BTW, theists speak of the resurrection of the "body", not the disappearance of the body. Surely an eternal reality is of more value than a temporary one, eh?

YOUR QUOTES BELOW ARE AIMED AT SICK RELIGIONS, NOT HEALTHY ONES:
"Therefore, belief in "life" after death appears to the realist to be delusion motivated by a childish wishfulness that rational people eventually outgrow.

"Those who remain delusional in the face of this reality are the ones who endanger life itself. Love of life is intrinsic and requires no false religious construction or establishment. All existing (or possible) religions, being based on error, are distracting at best and dangerous in general."

I have no problem thinking of myself as a rational realist. As such, I accept that some religions are sick. There is sick philosophy/science/religion and art-- rooted in fear, hate and despair. Also, there is such a thing as healthy philosophy/science/religion and art, based on faith, hope and love. Keep in mind that it was Jesus, not an atheist, who said, "I am come that you might have LIFE, and have it abundantly."

Dismay, from Dictionary.com:

1. to break down the courage of completely, as by sudden danger or trouble; dishearten thoroughly; daunt: The surprise attack dismayed the enemy.

2. to surprise in such a manner as to disillusion: She was dismayed to learn of their disloyalty.

3. to alarm; perturb: The new law dismayed some of the more conservative politicians.

While the prevalence of superstition is certainly annoying, I think "dismaying" is also appropriate. False beliefs endanger us all. In worst case scenarios, religious politicians believing that bringing on the end of the world by is a good thing (part of "God's plan") could ruin everyone's entire day. They think that the god will be proud of their steadfast heoric devotion as they arm the nuclear warheads, but they will be actually murdering everyone. It's dismaying that there is no way to get through to them. Religious delusion and lunacy seems to be gaining ground on reason.

Rick, you write:
Rick, I am amazed and annoyed, not dismayed, to think that you actually believe that most intelligent religious leaders agree with the Bush administration.
You go on: I ask: What have you done to get through to "them", anything?
I know that most Canadians, including our religious leaders, are opposed to the way we in the west have handled the war in Iraq. We wanted the UN to be involved.

You write: "Religious delusion and lunacy seems to be gaining ground on reason." So what else in new? And I include the religion of atheism.

If you think my belief is incorrect, then please provide some evidence to consider, and I may change it. You are suggesting that most religious leaders don't believe that the Bible (or other Holy book) is the "word of God." I suggest that such a belief is a cornerstone of monotheistic religions.

Rick, There are tonnes of evidence. Check out the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism
Check out, especially, the work of the retired Episcopalian bishop John S. Spong.

JOHN SHELBY SPONG, KAREN ARMSTRONG, KAREN KING AND OTHERS
I met Dr. Spong here, in Toronto, more than once. More than once I thought about, and imagined: Wouldn't it nice if we could have a group of people, here in Toronto, willing to explore a new way of doing theology?
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Spong/spong.html
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/King/king.html
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Mission/Why_/why_.html
=======================================
The congregation I now attend got its start December 15, 2006, at a special inaugral service at the Markham Theatre, Markham, ON. My wife and I were proud to be a part of that historic event.

http://www.pathwayschurch.ca--a congregation connected wtih the United Church of Canada--got started, partly, as a result of his work in Toronto.

WESTAR INSTITUTE--ABOUT PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGICAL THINKERS
http://www.westarinstitute.org/index.html
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Mission/mission.html

Karen Armstrong, was former RC nun, is also agreat writer --The History Of God--in this field. I have, also, met her here, in Toronto.

Keep in mind that progressive theology is not about having a set of doctrines, or dogmas; it is more about having a positive mental attitude towards a great variety faiths, loving enriching differences and seeking unity in diversity.

INTERESTED IN FINDING SOLUTIONS?
The solution, IMHO, is for progressive thinkers, from all walks of life, despite our minor differences, to join in harmony--in a kind of tollerance and acceptance, which is not just indifference, in the serious search for that kind of joyous freedom, which is not just license.

THE BIG QUESTION ABOUT BIG VALUES, AND BIG ISSUES
Here are some BIG questions, which we all need to ponder: Morally and ethically, what are the BIG issues of life? And, when it comes to such issues, where and how do we draw the line?

For anyone looking for this thread, here it is, above.

Regarding Lindsay's response to Rick: So far, we have not heard a response, from Rick to Lindsay. Let us presume that it is because Rick is away, not just lost for words .

Recently, I wrote Mark Thomas, a rational and positive atheist.
I thanked him for his very interesting site
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm
Interestingly, his site includes a lot of good humour based the need of some human beings to believe anything, including any proof, in contrast to those who doubt everything--IMO, both extremes to be avoided.
==================
He begins his essay by saying that, "Life is a process� not a design. It requires an explanation � not an intelligent designer." I told him that I agree. Then I went on to write:
WELCOME TO PROCESS THEISM and to GØD--goodness, order and design--as Love. Like you, I do not believe in gods, or a god called God. But I am not an atheist. That is, I am not one who approaches the concept of 'god' consciousness, negatively. Therefore, I feel comfortable calling myself a protheist. That is, I see all things--even including things which involve pain, suffering and death--as parts of a process which can, eventually, become total goodness, order and design, for which I use a special word I coined, GØD. I write GØD' for the same reason Orthodox Jews write, G-d. Orthodox Jews do it to avoid mental idolatry--making a mental image of the Divine Being.
===========================================
Like you, I do not believe in gods, or a god called God. But I am not an atheist. That is, I am not one who approaches the concept of 'god' consciousness, negatively. Therefore, I feel comfortable calling myself a protheist. That is, I see all things--even including things which involve pain, suffering and death--as parts of a process which can, eventually, become total goodness, order and design, for which I use a special word I coined, 'G�D'. I write 'G�D' for the same reason Orthodox Jews write, G-d. Orthodox Jews do it to avoid mental idolatry--making a mental image of the Divine Being.

ALL THINGS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING
I say this because I have a strong feeling that, backed by a rational faith and a reasonable hope, all things, including humanity, are in the process of becoming fully realized. Furthermore, I also choose to have this faith and hope. In addition, I choose to have a strong and personal will (love) that it be so. Because of this, I think I now understand why John wrote: Ho theos agape--God is love (1 John 4:16).

Agape/love, in my opinion, is not just a feeling, one which depends on physical, mental and spiritual circumstances, on others, or on our heredity and/or environment. It is an act of pure will, originating in the spirit--our consciousness of self.

WHY I CHOOSE TO BE A PROCESS THEIST
Based on this, and until otherwise convinced, I choose to
think of myself as a protheist--that is, one who agrees with you and
believes there is an explanation for all of nature. At this point, I believe in, and act on the premise that GØD is not some objective human-like being made in the image of, and separate from, us; but rather: GØD, as the Gospel of John points out, is Spirit, Love, that which is total, infinite, eternal, all-encompassing, universal and very much present in eveyone who wills to be at one with that Spirit and Love.

LOVE IS THE GOOD NEWS
You conclude your article by letting us know, "... the bad news ...
and the good news." You say that, "The bad news is that there is no
god to watch over and care for us. The good news is that there is no
hell, and we can all love and care for each other � if we so choose."

Ah yes! the power to choose and to value the highest good--such an all-important concept. Obviously you and John the Divine have something in common: You both choose and value the highest good, love.

Thanks, again, for your stimulating essay.

Yours in the spirit of the highest good--agape/love...
I say this because I have a strong feeling that, backed by a rational faith and a reasonable hope, all things, including humanity, are in the process of becoming fully realized. Furthermore, I also choose to have this faith and hope. In addition, I choose to have a strong and personal will (love) that it be so. Because of this, I think I now understand why John wrote: Ho theos agape--God is love (1 John 4:16).

Agape/love, in my opinion, is not just a feeling, one which depends on physical, mental and spiritual circumstances, on others, or on our heredity and/or environment. It is an act of pure will, originating in the spirit--our consciousness of self.

Thanks, again, for your stimulating essay.

Yours in the spirit of the highest good--agape/love...

Question: What is the highest good of atheism?

To create a purpose in life, and pursue it to the best of your ability.

IMHO 'The highest good of atheism' is just as much a human concept as believing in a God!

In other words, it is universally undefinable, and lacks any possibility of being proven.

It is, therefore, for the individual to decide on just what they wish to believe, to decide whatever sort of behaviour they wish to adopt, and to take whatever consequences on the cheek (from Society).

In many ways, adopting a atheist attitude incurs an even greater responsibility on any individual than accepting and living by a Faith system created by another individual or group.

If an atheist gets it wrong he/she goes to hell [assuming that god does exist]!

Those adopting a Faith in a god, in the sense of accepting a belief in one god or another will just proclaim somebody else being at fault for creating false gods when they hit the 'pearly gates'.
Which god will accept or deny that such person should have had the intelligence to identify the Real and only True god and believe therein?

I do believe that we are all free to choose our own beliefs and that we should be free to practice such belief as long as it does not contravene the same right for all other individuals.
So rock on God with a slash!

Rymer, In answer to my question about the highest values of atheism--and I presume you write as an atheist--you write lots of good ideas such as Yeah! I often wonder why atheists want to fight the battle without having any invisible means of support.
I presume you realize that as a unitheist I do not have a faith in a god or in pearly gates.
Your question does not vibrate with unitheism. AGREED!!!!!
I will. Check my signature. Keep in mind, devout Jews write with a dash, 'G-d', to express the idea that they are not talking about a God as a concrete and objective person.
==============================
SUMMARIZING SOME BASIC BELIEFS as I understand them--Feel free to correct me.
================================================
A few days ago (Dec. 5, 2007), the following question came to my mind: In a word or two, theologically speaking, how do the great world religion differ from one another:

1.Brahamanism/Hinduism thinks of God, pantheistically, as the universal soul. Therefore, God emanates from all things. It usually takes many reincarnations to free us from the ego and its material prison.

2. Buddhism, which also believe in reincarnation, has no god-like figure or person as such, who it worships. It is similar to B/H in several ways. It places emphasis on right actions which will lead souls to Nirvana--the complete absorption of the ego into the supreme universal spirit.

3. Judaism emphasizes the oneness of God and the immanence of God-- who wants people to be one with him by keeping the laws if the Torah. Jews look for the Messiah who is yet to come and establish God's kingdom on earth, beginning in Jerusalem.

4. Christianity, based on Judaism, also emphasizes the immanence of God and the idea that his kingdom will come, on earth. However, it teaches that Jesus was the Messiah. Many Christians--especially Catholics, Orthodox and Fundamentalists--believe that by faith in the one God/Jesus/Holy Spirit--all one and the same--they are redeemed by grace and do not need to worry about keeping all the laws.

5. Muslims emphasize the transcendence of God, and keeping the laws AND TRADITIONS as found in the Koran--the precise words of God which were dictated to Mohammad. because he could not write, Mohammad recited the words for others to put in written form. Like most religions--except those with liberal ideas--Muslims believe that they have the one true religion to which all will eventually submit.

THEOCRACIES
Traditional Jews, Christians and Muslims think of Jerusalem as the Holy City from which God will, one day, rule his kingdom and bring world of peace, justice and prosperity.

6. Moral Atheism, I presume, emphasizes physicalism and democratic secularism. I presume it makes moral and ethical humanity the measure of things and that matter, including the just distribution of wealth, is the ultimate reality.

7. As a unitheist I am comfortable with an open-minded Judaeo/ Christian culture, while accepting other open-minded cultures. Without being doctrinaire, I like ideas such as emanation, reincarnation, immanence, transcendence, morality, democracy and the peace-promoting just distribution of power and wealth.

I am not comfortable with any kind of theocracy, including one based on the worship of secular materialism.

Joesus has a good point here, at first the thread seems to be a debate about religion between Lucid and Joesus, but by the end of it they reach a profound understanding about each other. The thread in itself is a good read, its conclusion is a bright one, where individuals with completely different beliefs develop a respect and understanding for each others points of view.

It might take a while to read, but its defiantly worth it, think of it like a book with more than one author...

IMO, honest dialogue motivated by good will is always a good basis for achieving, "respect and understanding for each others points of view."

Good will is often motivated by personal gain.
In this case if points of view are about
then the personal gain is to assume you are right if not proven otherwise, and to believe you can step into a conversation with everyones balls in your hands.
It's a nice idea but not necessarily one that's going to get you anything.
I would suggest you get over your definition of respect and understanding so you don't take offense when others don't care to meet you at your level of understanding.
Most new agers who come together to politely speak of relative ideas with the idea of maintaining respect rarely speak what's really on their mind so that false pretenses can be maintained to keep everyones feelings up.
Such a co-dependent relationship invariably helps keep everyone asleep and mesmerized by protocol and etiquette, and rarely sparks any real growth in consciousness and understanding of reality.