Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING
BrainMeta.com Forum > Philosophy, Truth, History, & Politics > Theology
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Culture
Gregory Paul is an independent researcher on subjects dealing with paleontology, evolution, religion and society. Books include Predatory Dinosaurs of the World and Dinosaurs of the Air, the latter is the subject of a PBS NOVA episode in production. His analysis showing the societal decline and inferiority of 1st world religion in the Journal of Religion and Society (moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html, the journal refuses to publish further papers on the subject) got Paul labeled the churches public enemy #1 by MSNBC, and denounced as un-American in the Wall Street Journal.


A sociologist at Pitzer, Phil Zuckerman is the author of Invitation to the Sociology of Religion, Du Bois on Religion, and Sex and Religion, and is working on a book that covers his ground breaking study of how Scandinavians are dealing with their secular societies. His Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006) verifies the inability of popular religiosity to thrive in modern, egalitarian democracies.


WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING

A myth is gaining ground. The myth seems plausible enough. The proposition is that after God died in the secular 20th century, He is back in a big way as people around the world again find faith. In 2006 Foreign Policy ran two articles that made similar, yet distinctive claims. In the spring Phillip Longman's "The Return of the Patriarchy" contended that secular folk are reproducing themselves, or failing to reproduce themselves, out of existence as the believers swiftly reproduce via a "process similar to survival of the fittest." In the summer FP followed up with "Why God is Winning" by Samuel Shah and Monica Duffy Toft, who pronounced that the Big Three— Christianity, Islam and Hinduism—are back on the global march as secularism fades into irrelevance. In the fall Foreign Affairs joined the chorus when Walter Russell Mead's God's Country? gave the impression that conservative theism continues to rise in a United States jolted back to the spiritual by 9/11. In American Fascists Chris Hedges warns that hard-core Dominionists are accumulating the power to convert the nation into a fundamentalist theocracy.

The actual situation, as is usual in human affairs, much more complex and nuanced, and therefore much more fascinating. Let's start by considering the analytical superficiality that mars the twin articles in Foreign Policy. While Longman proposes that rapid reproduction is the primary agent behind the resurgence of patriarchal faith, Shah and Toft think it is mainly a matter democratic choice in which younger generations reject their parent's secularism. In reality all these claims are well off base. Religion is in serious trouble. The status of faith is especially dire in the west, where the churches face an unprecedented crisis that threatens the existence of organized faith as a viable entity, and there is surprisingly little that can be done to change the circumstances.

Shah and Toft cite the World Christian Encyclopedia as supporting a planetary revival because its shows that "at the beginning of the 21st century, a greater portion of the world's population adhered to [Christianity, Islam and Hinduism] in 2000 than a century earlier." They point to a table in the WCE that shows that the largest Christian and largest nonChristian faiths, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and Hinduism, rose from half to nearly two thirds of the world in the 1900s. But that it is a peculiar choice of sects. If every Mohammedan and Hindu sect large and small is tallied, shouldn't every Orthodox, Coptic and so on be too? Another look at the WCE table shows that all Christians, Muslims and Hindus combined edging up a much more modest 60 to 66% (but see below correction) since the reign of Queen Victoria.

What scheme of thought did soar in the 20th century? Although Shah and Toft cite the WCE when it appears to aid their thesis, they seem to have missed key passages near the beginning of the work. The evangelical authors of the WCE lament that no Christian "in 1900 expected the massive defections from Christianity that subsequently took place in Western Europe due to secularism…. and in the Americas due to materialism…. The number of nonreligionists…. throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900, to 697 million in 1970, and on to 918 million in AD 2000…. Equally startling has been the meteoritic growth of secularism…. Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world's religions: agnosticism…. and atheism…. From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems…. are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians" (italics added). (The WCE probably understates today's nonreligious. They have Christians constituting 68-94% of nations where surveys indicate that a quarter to half or more are not religious, and they may overestimate Chinese Christians by a factor of two. In that case the nonreligious probably soared past the billion mark already, and the three great faiths total 64% at most.)

Far from providing unambiguous evidence of the rise of faith, the devout compliers of the WCE document what they characterize as the spectacular ballooning of secularism by a few hundred-fold! It has no historical match. It dwarfs the widely heralded Mormon climb to 12 million during the same time, even the growth within Protestantism of Pentecostals from nearly nothing to half a billion does not equal it.

Yet Longman, and especially Shah and Toft, left readers with the impression that Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are each regaining the international initiative against secularism. Again we can turn to the WCE, whose results are presented in the pie charts (with the above adjustment, and with the proviso that the stats are inevitably approximations).




Since 1900 Christians have made up about a third of the global population, and are edging downwards. No growth there. Hindus are coasting at a seventh the total, no significant increase there either even though India adds more people each year than any other nation. The WCE predicts no proportional increase for these faiths by 2050. The flourishing revival of two megareligions whether by democracy, edification, or fecundity is therefore a mirage. Having shrunk by a quarter in the 20th century, Buddhism is predicted to shrink almost as much over the next half century. Once rivaling Christianity, paganism – whether it be ancient or modern as per New Ageism and Scientology — has over all contracted by well over half and is expected to continue to dwindle.

One Great Faith has risen from one eighth to one fifth of the globe in a hundred years, and is projected to rise to one quarter by 2050. Islam. But education and the vote have little to do with it. Generally impoverished and poorly educated, most Muslims live in nations where democracy is minimalist or absent. Nor are many infidels converting to Allah. Longman was correct on one point; Islam is growing because Muslims are literally having lots of unprotected sex. The absence of a grand revival of Christ, Allah and Vishnu worship via democratic free choice brings us to a point, as important as it is little appreciated — the chronic inability of religion to recruit new adherents on a consistent, global basis.


It is well documented that Christianity has withered dramatically in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The failure of the faith in the west is regularly denounced by Popes and Protestant leaders. Churches are being converted into libraries, laundromats and pubs. Those who disbelieve in deities typically make up large portions of the population, according to some surveys they make up the majority of citizens in Scandinavia, France and Japan. Evolution is accepted by the majority in all secular nations, up to four in five in some.

In his paper "Christianity in Britain, R. I. P." Steve Bruce explains that the recent rise of pagans is not nearly sufficiently to make up for the implosion of the churches, which are in danger of dwindling past the demographic and organizational point of no return. A commission of the Church of England agreed, proposing that little attended Sabbath services be dropped, and concluding that the advent of modern lifestyles "coincides with the demise of Christendom." The church commissioned Making Sense of Generation Y study advised the clergy to "avoid panic." Perhaps that response would be appropriate considering the absence of quantitative evidence of a significant Christian revival in any secularized democracy. God belief is not dead in these nonreligious democracies, but it is on life support. The ardent hopes of C. S. Lewis and John Paul II to reChristianize Europe have abjectly failed.

EuroMuslims may become a theological plurality by outnumbering active Christians in a few decades, but that does not mean much in the context of a shrinking Christian minority. In most western nations Muslims are less than one percent to under three. The only exceptions are the Netherlands at five percent, and France at ten, and the native French have the highest birth rate in western Europe.

The mass loss of popular faith in the Eurocultures is often waved away as an isolated aberration in a world still infatuated with the gods. After all, who cares what the "old Europe" of France and Sweden is up to? This is a big mistake. Such a thing has never been seen before in history. And where it has happened is critical to the future of faith. Aside from constituting proof of principle that religion is dangerously vulnerable to modernity, that secularism and disbelief do best in nations that are the most democratic, educated and prosperous directly falsifies the Shah and Toft thesis that these factors are the allies of religiosity.

But hasn't the loss of faith in old Europe been matched by a great revival in new Europe? In his account of his voyage along the Siberian Lena River, Jeffrey Taylor in River of No Reprieve observed that the locals remain atheistic, and the religious minority seems more nationalistic than devout. This premise is applicable to former KGV officer Putin's embrace of the Russian Orthodox church, which had tight connections with the Czarist secret police. Just a quarter of Russians absolutely believe in God, the portion who say that religion is important in their lives are down in the teens, and irreligion may be continuing to rise in very atheistic eastern Germany and the Czech Republic. Even in Poland, the one eastern bloc nation in which religion played an important role in overturning atheistic communism, just one third consider religion to be very important in their lives, and faith is declining towards the old European norm. It turns out that the "new" Europe is not turning out particularly godly.

The Central Kingdom has never been especially religious, became atheistic under communism, and is striving for world dominance via materialistic consumerism. The finding by the Shanghai university poll that religious Chinese lifted from 100 million in the 1960s to 300 million resulted in headlines along the lines of "Poll Finds Surge of Religion Among Chinese." But the 300 million figure is far below the 600 million religious estimated by the World Christian Encyclopedia, and is less than a third of the adult population. Nor should monotheists be particularly comforted. The survey uncovered 40 million Christians, about half the inflated estimate in the WCE, and just 4% of the adult population. Most religious Chinese are Buddhists and Taoists, or worship the likes of the God of Fortune, the Black Dragon and the Dragon King. By the way, The Economist says women are using religion as a way to battle traditional Chinese patriarchy. If the survey is correct that over two thirds of Chinese are not religious then they may approach a billion in China alone, expanding the global total even further.

Mass devotion remains strong in most of the 2nd and 3rd world, but even there there is theistic concern. South of our border a quarter to over half the population describe religion as only somewhat important in their lives. Rather than becoming more patriarchal as democracy and education expand, Mexico is liberalizing as progressive forces successfully push laws favoring abortion and gay rights to the vexation of the Roman and evangelical churches. There is even trouble for Islam in its own realm. A third of Turks think religion is not highly important in their lives, and Iranian urban youth have been highly secularized in reaction to the inept corruption of the Mullahs. In Asia 40% of the citizens of booming South Korea don't believe in God, and only a quarter (most evangelical Christians) identify themselves as strongly religious.



Doesn't America, the one western nation where two thirds absolutely believe in God, and nine in ten think there is some form of higher power, show that religion can thrive in an advanced democracy? Not necessarily.

A decade and a half of sampling finds conservative (thought to be about two thirds to four fifths of the total of) evangelicals and born-agains consistently stuck between a quarter and a third of the population. The majority that considers religion very important in their lives dropped from over two thirds in the 1960s to a bare majority in 1970s and 1980s, and appeared to edge up in the Clinton era. But instead of rising post 9/11 as many predicted, it is slipping again.

Those who feel the opposite about religion doubled between the 1960s and 1970s, have been fairly stable since then, but have been edging up in recent years. American opinion on the issue of human evolution from animals has been rock steady, about half agreeing, about half disagreeing, for a quarter century. What has changed is how people view the Bible. In the 1970s nearly four in ten took the testaments literally, just a little over one in ten thought it was a mixture of history, fables, and legends, a three to one ratio in favor of the Biblical view. Since then a persistent trend has seen literalism decline to between a quarter and a third of the population, and skeptics have doubled to nearly one in five. If the trend continues the fableists will equal and then surpass the literalists in a couple of decades.



Even the megachurch phenomenon is illusory. A spiritual cross of sports stadiums with theme parks, hi-tech churches are a desperate effort to pull in and satisfy a mass-media jaded audience for whom the old sit in the pews and listen to the standard sermon and sing some old time hymns does not cut it anymore. Rather than boosting church membership, megachurches are merely consolidating it.

From a high of three quarters of the population in the 1930s to 1960s, a gradual, persistent decline has set in, leaving some clerics distressed at the growing abandonment of small churches as the big ones gobble up what is left of the rest. Weekly religious service attendance rose only briefly in the months after 9/11—evidence that the event failed to stem national secularization – and then lost ground as the Catholic sex scandal damaged church credibility. As few as one in four or five Americans are actually in church on a typical Sunday, only a few percent of them in megachurches.

In his Foreign Affairs article Mead noted that conservative Southern Baptists constitute the largest church in the states, and they are among the most evangelical. Mead did not note that a Southern Baptist church release laments that "evangelistically, the denomination is on a path of slow but discernable deterioration." The greatest born again sect is baptizing members at the same absolute yearly rate as they did half a century ago, when the population was half as large, and in the last few years the overall trend has been downwards.

Rather than Amerofaith becoming deeply patriarchal as Longman thinks, it is increasingly feminine. Women church goers greatly outnumber men, who find church too dull. Here's the kicker. Children tend to pick up their beliefs from their fathers. So, despite a vibrant evangelical youth cohort, young Americans taken as a whole are the least religious and most culturally tolerant age group in the nation.

One group has experienced rapid growth. In the 1940s and 50s 1-2% usually responded no asked if they believe in God, up to 98% said yes. A Harris study specifically designed to arrive at the best current figure found that 9% do not believe in a creator, and 12% are not sure. The over tenfold expansion of Amerorationalism easily outpaces the Mormon and Pentecostal growth rates over the same half century.

America's disbelievers atheists now number 30 million, most well educated and higher income, and they far outnumber American Jews, Muslims and Mormons combined. There are many more disbelievers than Southern Baptists, and the god skeptics are getting more recruits than the evangelicals.

The rise of American rationalism is based on adult choice—secularists certainly not growing via rapid reproduction. The results can be seen on the bookshelves, as aggressively atheistic books such as Sam Harris' The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell, break the mainstream publishing barrier onto the best-sellers lists. Long disparaged as neither moral or American, the growing community is beginning to assert itself as a socio-political force.


What is actually happening here and abroad is a great polarization as increasingly anxious and often desperate hard-core believers mount a vigorous counterrevolution via extreme levels of activism to the first emergence of mass apostasy in history. No major religion is expanding its share of the global population by conversion in any circumstances, much less educated democracy. Disbelief in the supernatural alone is able to achieve extraordinary rates of growth by voluntary conversion. Why?

It is to be expected that in 2nd and 3rd world nations where wealth is concentrated among an elite few and the masses are impoverished that the great majority cling to the reassurance of faith.

Nor is it all that surprising that faith has imploded in most of the west. Every single 1st world nation that is irreligious shares a set of distinctive attributes. These include handgun control, anti-corporal punishment and anti-bullying policies, rehabilitative rather than punitive incarceration, intensive sex education that emphasizes condom use, reduced socio-economic disparity via tax and welfare systems combined with comprehensive health care, increased leisure time that can be dedicated to family needs and stress reduction, and so forth.

As a result the great majority enjoy long, safe, comfortable, middle class lives that they can be confident will not be lost due to factors beyond their control. It is hard to lose one's middle class status in Europe, Canada and so forth, and modern medicine is always accessible regardless of income. Nor do these egalitarians culture emphasize the attainment of immense wealth and luxury, so most folks are reasonably satisfied with what they have got. Such circumstances dramatically reduces peoples' need to believe in supernatural forces that protect them from life's calamities, help them get what they don't have, or at least make up for them with the ultimate Club Med of heaven. One of us (Zuckerman) interviewed secular Europeans and verified that the process of secularization is casual; most hardly think about the issue of God, not finding the concept relevant to their contented lives.

The result is plain to see. Not a single advanced democracy that enjoys benign, progressive socio-economic conditions retains a high level of popular religiosity. They all go material.

It is the great anomaly, the United States, that has long perplexed sociologists. America has a large, well educated middle class that lives in comfort—so why do they still believe in a supernatural creator? Because they are afraid and insecure. Arbitrary dismissal from a long held job, loss of health insurance followed by an extended illness, excessive debt due to the struggle to live like the wealthy; before you know it a typical American family can find itself financially ruined. Overwhelming medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy.

In part to try to accumulate the wealth needed to try to prevent financial catastrophe, in part to compete in a culture of growing economic disparity with the super rich, the typical American is engaged in a Darwinian, keeping up with the Jones competition in which failure to perform to expectations further raises levels of psychological stress. It is not, therefore, surprising that most look to friendly forces from the beyond to protect them from the pitfalls of a risky American life, and if that fails compensate with a blissful eternal existence.

The effect can be more direct. For instance, the absence of universal health care encourages the utilization of faith-based medical charities. The latter, as well intentioned as they are, cannot provide the comprehensive health services that best suppress mortality at all ages. But charities extend the reach of the churches into the secular community, enhancing their ability to influence society and politics, and retain and recruit members.

Rather than religion being an integral part of the American character, the main reason the United States is the only prosperous democracy that retains a high level of religious belief and activity is because we have substandard socio-economic conditions and the highest level of disparity. The other factors widely thought to be driving forces behind mass faith—desire for the social links provided by churches, fear of societal amorality, fear of death, genetic predisposition towards religiosity, etc—are not critical simply because hundreds of millions have freely accepted being nonreligious mortals in a dozen and a half democracies. Such motives and factors can be operative only if socio-economic circumstances are sufficiently poor to sustain mass creationism and religion.

So much for the common belief that supernatural-based religiosity is the default mode inherent to the human condition. What about the hypothesis that has gained wide currency, that competition between the plethora of churches spawned by the separation of church and state is responsible for America's highly religious population? Australia and New Zealand copied the American separation between church and state in their constitutions, yet they are much more irreligious. Meanwhile the most religious advanced democracies in Europe are those where the Catholic church is, or was, dominant.

To put it starkly, the level of popular religion is not a spiritual matter, it is actually the result of social, political and especially economic conditions (please note we are discussing large scale, long term population trends, not individual cases). Mass rejection of the gods invariably blossoms in the context of the equally distributed prosperity and education found in almost all 1st world democracies. There are no exceptions on a national basis. That is why only disbelief has proven able to grow via democratic conversion in the benign environment of education and egalitarian prosperity. Mass faith prospers solely in the context of the comparatively primitive social, economic and educational disparities and poverty still characteristic of the 2nd and 3rd worlds and the US.

We can also explain why America is has become increasingly at odds with itself. On one hand the growing level of socio-economic disparity that is leaving an increasing portion of the population behind in the socially Darwinian rat-race is boosting levels of hard-line religiosity in the lower classes. On the other hand freedom from belief in the supernatural is rising among the growing segment that enjoys higher incomes and sophisticated education. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Richard Branson and Rupert Murdoch are typical upper crust disbelievers.

The practical implications are equally breath taking. Every time a nation becomes truly advanced in terms of democratic, egalitarian education and prosperity it loses the faith. It's guaranteed. That is why perceptive theists are justifiably scared. In practical terms their only practical hope is for nations to continue to suffer from socio-economic disparity, poverty and maleducation. That strategy is, of course, neither credible nor desirable. And that is why the secular community should be more encouraged.


Skepticism of the transcendent has not swept the planet with the completeness expected by some in the 20th century. Doing so would have required the conversion to atheism of an unattainable 50 million people a year in a world where the great majority chronically lack the high level of science-oriented education, secure prosperity, and democracy that spontaneous disbelief depends upon. The expectation of global atheism was correspondingly naïve, and will remain so as billions live in, or fear living in, substandard conditions. Which should not comfort theists. Even so, theists are equally naïve when they dream that faith can retake the entire world.

Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief, or faced a hazard as powerful as that posed by modernity. How is organized religion going to regain the true, choice-based initiative when only one of them is growing, and it is doing so with reproductive activity rather than by convincing the masses to join in, when no major faith is proving able to grow as they break out of their ancestral lands via mass conversion, and when securely prosperous democracies appear immune to mass devotion? The religious industry simply lacks a reliable stratagem for defeating disbelief in the 21st century.

Even though liberal, pro-evolution religions are not at fault for unacceptable social policies, organized faith cannot reform itself by supporting successful secular social arrangements because these actions inadvertently suppress popular religiosity. They are caught in a classic Catch-22. And liberal churches are even less able to thrive in advanced democracies than are their more conservative counterparts, so if churches, temples and mosques become matriarchal by socio-politically liberalizing they risk secularizing themselves into further insignificance.

In Commonweal Peter Quinn contends that Stephen Gould, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris have sanitized the social philosophy of Charles Darwin, which was not sufficiently kindly and tolerant to produce "the sole and true foundation for a humanistic society, free of the primitive and dangerous irrationality of religious belief."

Aside from the above nontheists never having promoted Darwin's personal world-view as the sole fountain of societal goodness, Quinn is making the even bigger mistake—the same mistake nearly everyone is making—of believing that the contest between popular faith and secularism is an epic struggle of ideas that then determines the quality of societies. But the level and nature of popular faith is really set by economic conditions, and only secular egalitarian prosperous democracies that reject extreme social Darwinism can produce the best practical conditions.

Assuming America continues to secularize towards the 1st world norm then what can we expect? The decline in faith-based conservative ideology is predicted to allow the country to adopt the progressive policies that have been proven to work in the rest of the west, and vice-versa. Even Wal-Mart has come out in favor of universal medical coverage as bottom-line busting health care expenditures compel the corporations to turn towards the system that has done so much harm to the churches of Europe. If and when religion declines in the states Darwin's science will automatically benefit enormously as it has in ungodly Europe, but Darwinistic social policies will not fare as well as they have in Christian America.

In the end what humanity chooses to believe will be more a matter of economics than of debate, deliberately considered choice, or reproduction. The more national societies that provide financial and physical security to the population, the fewer that will be religiously devout. The more that cannot provide their citizens with these high standards the more that will hope that supernatural forces will alleviate their anxieties. It is probable that there is little that can be done by either side to alter this fundamental pattern.
rhymer
Worms haven't done too badly and neither any Society nor any God looks after them!
Good conclusions, however for man and woman.
Lindsay
As one who is not an atheist--I abhor negative approaches--and questions the claims of all forms of theism, including the many polytheisms and the several monotheisms--I include myself among those who are happy to second the thesis of this thread.

Did I get that right? I hope I have. If not, I will correct it, later.

Culture, give us a summary of your thesis, please.
Rick
I am also reluctant to refer to myself as an atheist, preferring the term humanist.




Culture
QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 03, 2007, 12:48 PM) *

As one who is not an atheist--I abhor negative approaches--has questioned the claims of all forms of theism, including the many polytheisms and the several monotheisms, for decades--I include myself among those who happy to second the thesis of this thread.

Did I get that right? I hope I have. If not, I will correct it, later.

Culture, give us a summary of your thesis, please.


Just an interesting thread. Interesting that as economics, education and technology gains momentum, faith/belief start plummeting. Of course the article does not venture to propose WHY this is so, but I am sure there is to be a follow up on this.
Lindsay
Did you hear about ATHEISM INC? It is registered as a not-for-prophets corporation. smile.gif
lcsglvr
Has anyone read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? I'm 3/4 done with it; it's a good book. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in religion (for, against or indifferent).
maximus242
QUOTE(Rick @ May 03, 2007, 04:07 PM) *

Please put it back the way it was. Abuse of moderator authority is grounds for its removal.


Whose been abusing their mod powers Rick?
Lindsay
Max, I Confess: I confess, it was me. However, I hope I have made things right, now that I have discovered how this system works.
=================================================
BTW, how many have heard of the work of Professor Anthony Flew?

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

Apparently, once a non-believer, he now does think there is clear evidence for God, deistically speaking.

Perhaps the problem is one of definition. In another forum I wrote: Naturally, I agree with Flew, to a point. However, IMHO, I offer the following theory (god-given idea) and definition of GØD and compare it with God:

God and GØD
There is a difference between God and GØD. Belief in God requires faith. But GØD can be understood through reason and patient research.

Let us compare the two:
====================
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION
====================
The God of theism requires that we, his creatures
have unquestioning faith in Him and everything he
chooses to reveal to us. He--obviously a male-like
heavenly father and superior being--preceded the
universe, which He created out of nothing. He
demands that we worship and obey him on pain
of death and eternal damnation. If you are a Jew
or a Christian, He is the is the author of the Bible,
which is his Word.

According to the Bible, not long after the creation
the earth and animal life, He created man, Adam.
Then he created woman, Eve--out of man. Eve
sinned and led Adam to sin. This led to the fall of
all humanity. In his anger God destroyed all
humanity in a flood and saved only the family of
Noah. From that point on, the descendants of
Noah kept waiting for a Messiah who would l
ead them back to the garden of Eden.

If you are a certain kind of Christian, you believe
that the Messiah finally came in the form of Jesus,
the one and only son of God, to begin the salvation
of the world. About 2000 years ago, the Jews and
others, who believed this, became Christians and
made the attempt, which failed, to set up the
Kingdom of God on earth.

Modern Jews--the descendants of those who
refused to accept Jesus as The Messiah--are
still waiting for the Messiah.

Meanwhile, Christians are waiting for Jesus to
return and finish the work of salvation. Jews and
Christians think of God as Lord and Master.
He is to be worshipped and obeyed, without question.
And here we are.

Muslims, on the other hand, while they accept
much--though not all--of the basic story of the Bible,
have added the Koran, to correct the mistakes
in Bible, and as the final revelation from God.

====================================================================
I OFFER THE FOLLOWING IDEAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DOGMA AS A KIND OF NEO-THEISM, A PROTHEISM, A UNITHEISM
====================================================================
GØD, on the other hand, IMHO, is not the same as the God of theism. GØD is in and through, and at one with the cosmos--in full at-one-ment, spoken of by Jesus and his male and female disciples, including the Prophets. They, by their lives of service, did become one with GØD and paved the way for us.

That is, GØD is one with all creation as we are experiencing and exploring it, with the help of the sciences, in the now. GØD and the cosmos is all that is, always was, and always will be.

We are here, in cooperation with GØD, to create and perfect ourselves. GØD, as faith, hope, love, goodness, order, discipline and design in the cosmos, and personal in us, is here to help, not to be a dominating master. As Jesus put it in Luke, I am "among you as one who serves".
Hey Hey
Just in case anyone hasn't heard this before (wink.gif), there isn't any evidence for god(s), or, in a similar category, for fairies at the bottom of anyone's garden. But there is evidence that hallucinations (auditory, visual etc) and delusion occur. Is this telling us anything? Why would anyone need faith? Surely we have the universe. Isn't that enough for our wonderlust? Step out of the pulpits and look at the sky.
Joesus
QUOTE
I OFFER THE FOLLOWING IDEAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DOGMA


I think God has made available the entire range of infinity without any conditions at all and yet God won't look to exemplify his social preferences or self proclaimed point of reference so that he will be measured against another in any individual ability to perceive reality.

I think he/she/it has gotten over the need for self gratification and recognition.

I also think those who pave the way for others offer an empty plate so that we may fill it with our own divinity rather than take someone elses path and interpretations as our own without earning it.

Lindsay
HH comments:
QUOTE
Step out of the pulpits and look at the sky.
I agree, and I do, now that I am re-directed. Thanks for the reminder!
Hey Hey
QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 14, 2007, 02:18 AM) *
HH comments:
QUOTE
Step out of the pulpits and look at the sky.
I agree, and I do, now that I am re-directed. Thanks for the reminder!
I know that you and many others do, hence the continuing worthwhile discussion here on BrainMeta. Incidentally, I am lucky enough to live in a location with a wonderful view of the night sky. I haven't seen any UFOs but I see shooting stars almost every cloudness night. When my sons were younger, we used to walk around the village each night to see who would first spot a shooting star. I can't ever remember being let down when nights were clear. I used to tell them it was good exercise, good astronomical training, good for the imagination and a good way to have a cigar without their mum moaning about the stink! I stopped smoking when they grew up!
Rick
QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 12, 2007, 05:12 PM) *

QUOTE(Rick @ May 03, 2007, 04:07 PM) *

Please put it back the way it was. Abuse of moderator authority is grounds for its removal.


Whose been abusing their mod powers Rick?

I have forgotten which one it was. My post has been restored to its original form and the related posts were removed.
Rick
QUOTE(lcsglvr @ May 12, 2007, 06:29 AM) *

Has anyone read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? I'm 3/4 done with it; it's a good book. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in religion (for, against or indifferent).

I read it back in December '06. Very good. I recommend it to everyone and especially to anyone who has been taken in (hoodwinked) by religion.
Hey Hey
Get the audio version. Then you can read Robert Winston's "The Story of God" at the same time!
Lindsay
QUOTE(Rick @ May 14, 2007, 11:50 AM) *

QUOTE(lcsglvr @ May 12, 2007, 06:29 AM) *

Has anyone read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? I'm 3/4 done with it; it's a good book. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in religion (for, against or indifferent).

I read it back in December '06. Very good. I recommend it to everyone and especially to anyone who has been taken in (hoodwinked) by religion.
Of course people have never been taken in by those who have used science for immoral and evil purposes; they were simply blown to bits (liquidated) smile.gif. However, thank GØD, unlike those who sent them to their deaths, those who lived a moral, ethical, useful, loving and religious life did not die without hope.

IMHO, all things, including religion and science, can be used for evil purposes. And I agree: The use of religion and science for evil purposes is, perhaps, the highest evil of all.

I wonder: Why some people of great intellect, from all walks of life, find it so difficult to avoid the evil of generalizing?
Lindsay
Maybe there a Dog, after all:
http://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&dis...126dcacdc223ac1
Joesus
QUOTE
GØD is one with all creation as we are experiencing and exploring it, with the help of the sciences, in the now. GØD and the cosmos is all that is, always was, and always will be.

We are here, in cooperation with GØD, to create and perfect ourselves. .......


IMHO, all things, including religion and science, can be used for evil purposes. And I agree: The use of religion and science for evil purposes is, perhaps, the highest evil of all.


Interesting how the presence of God in some things is evil, and in others not.



QUOTE
I wonder: Why some people of great intellect, from all walks of life, find it so difficult to avoid the evil of generalizing?

Probably because they know not of what they speak.
Rick
Generalizing is not evil, generally. Generalizing, properly done, is a form of intelligence. Generalization is inductive reasoning, going from specific instances to general rules.

In general, the term "God" (or however you want to spell it) evokes a notion of monotheism in Western society. As you know, I think this conceptualization is wrong and misleading. To the extent that a wrong notion of a monotheistic god distracts people from reality, it does harm. Therefore, we can accomplish a double good by banishing the term from our discourse in favor of the term "nature." It simplifies language (which is good) and eliminates a source of misunderstanding (at best) or deception, which is also good.
Lindsay
Rick
QUOTE
Therefore, we can accomplish a double good by banishing the term from our discourse in favor of the term "nature."
Because, IMHO, GØD is that which includes all of nature--the known and the unknown--and interpenetrates all natural things and natural processes, naturally, I will use it.

Rick, as I have said before: Many concepts have doublets. I have no objection ro anyone using Nature as a doublet for GØD. However, I believe it needs to be capitalized. I agree with you when you say that, generally speaking, God equals monotheism--a personal being separate and apart from Nature, and from humanity, as a whole.
Technologist
QUOTE
Therefore, we can accomplish a double good by banishing the term from our discourse in favor of the term "nature."


Hehe, and many philosophers prefer the term "reality".

God, nature, reality - they all mean nothing without their terms being defined. Still, I'd tend to agree with Rick that I fail to see the need to use a term such as God, which has SO much cultural baggage, when there are much more neutral terms which could convey the same message.


Hey Hey
QUOTE(Technologist @ May 15, 2007, 08:56 PM) *
when there are much more neutral terms which could convey the same message.
That is ..... ?
Lindsay
QUOTE(Technologist @ May 15, 2007, 11:56 AM) *

QUOTE
Therefore, we can accomplish a double good by banishing the term from our discourse in favor of the term "nature."


Hehe, and many philosophers prefer the term "reality".

God, nature, reality - they all mean nothing without their terms being defined. Still, I'd tend to agree with Rick that I fail to see the need to use a term such as God, which has SO much cultural baggage, when there are much more neutral terms which could convey the same message.
Tech, For those who have been paying attention, smile.gif I do not use the term God.
I use the term GØD, a doublet for Nature. Comprendez vous?
Rick
It would seem to be pronounced in a similar manner to the more common term, or do you pronounce it "nature"?
Technologist
LOL

Here is a quote from an internet exchange (that wasn't on the subject of God) which explains better the point I am trying to make regarding semantics.

QUOTE
2. To appreciate this point, consider this analogy: people are arguing about whether ZERODOME exists (you can substitute the non-sensical word of your choice). The existence of ZERODOME is very contentious. People have been arguing for millennia. People have been put to death because of the belief in ZERODOME; others have been spared the death penalty because people doubted whether ZERODOME exists. One group says: ZERODOME is the Loch Ness monster. This makes sense, because people have argued about whether the Loch Ness monster exists. Sure, only one of the Loch Ness believers, or the Loch Ness doubters, can be right at the end of the day. But at least they were arguing. Another group, however, says ZERODOME is the city of London. But this is strange. It was extremely contentious that ZERODOME exists, yet it is not extremely contentious that London exists. In fact, it’s not contentious at all. So it would be very strange if ZERODOME and London were the same thing. That analysis doesn’t seem to capture the controversial element of whatever ZERODOME was supposed to be. Yet this is precisely what the London group says: ZERODOME is something that nobody would ever doubt exists. So a newcomer, trying to decide whether ZERODOME means the Loch Ness monster or London, might feel inclined towards believing it means the Loch Ness monster.
Rick
I think that Lindsay agrees that the monotheistic god, as commonly conceived in the popular religions, does not exist. My minor quarrel is in what I believe to be a poor choice of terminology.

Another small quarrel is in the question of the existence of any divinity at all in nature. I cannot seem to pin down how a universe devoid of divinity would be any different than the universe we know. Therefore, postulating divinity in our universe seems to add no explanatory power.
Lindsay
QUOTE(Rick @ May 15, 2007, 03:23 PM) *

I think that Lindsay agrees that the monotheistic god, as commonly conceived in the popular religions, does not exist.
I agree. God does not exist. If He does, I expect HIM to speak up, okay?

Allow me to check: God, are you there? If you exist as a person, who and where are you? Tell us, we are all ears. Waiting.

{ } God, I invite you to fill in the { }--a mathematical doublet for Ø.
=====================================================
Rick comments: "My minor quarrel is in what I believe to be a poor choice of terminology."

In the spirit of dialogue, I ask you: Rick, what, for you, is the best choice of terminiolgy?

Rick, then you comment:
"Another small quarrel is in the question of the existence of any divinity at all in nature.

I cannot seem to pin down how a universe devoid of divinity would be any different than the universe we know."

Rick, I respect that there is a universe I know. However, I feel that there is, and always will be, a universe which is more than I can know. This is what I call GØD.

Rick comments, "Therefore, postulating divinity in our universe seems to add no explanatory power."

Rick, I ask: Explanatory power for what?

What do you call that which seems to be beyond space and time, as we experience it using the sciences?

BTW, I reserve the right ot revise what I have just written, smile.gif okay?
Technologist
QUOTE
Rick, I respect that there is a universe I know. However, I feel that there is, and always will be, a universe which is more than I can know. This is what I call GØD.


Indeed. Lindsay, from when I interacted with you a while back I remember that you considered youself a process philosopher who identified with the metaphysics of Alfred Whitehead. My philosophizing is also based on the concept of *process*.

Because to do otherwise is an utterly futile endeavor, I choose to believe that there is a real world external to my cognition. I call this real world *reality* and also recognize the fact that despite my best efforts to optimize my cognition, there will always be mysteries that lie beyond my level of understanding. This state of affairs I consider to be a necessary "condition of Being". The moment of *surprise* is when, to some extent, mystery is overcome. I call this occurrence "mind-reality coalescence" and it is my primary value - my reason for Being.

I believe a fair amount of the cognitive dissonance which is present in contemporary naturalistic philosophy comes from a misconceptualization of goal states as being static rather than dynamic. Eliminating all mystery, just like become reality itself, is an impossibility. Yet being idealistic and craving the elimination of all mystery is precisely what defines most contemporary naturalists. This desire clouds their better judgement and results in premature declarations of victory (ie, wishful thinking) in such speculative areas of inquiry as consciousness (eg, Dennett's Quining Qualia).

In contrast, I am perfectly at ease with the presence of mystery. Yes, it is something to be over come, but it is also something without which I would cease to have purpose.

Unlike a mysterian, I do not worship mystery - nor do I worship reality - but I do stand in awe of their majestic beauty.
Lindsay
Technologist writes: "Unlike a mysterian, I do not worship mystery - nor do I worship reality - but I do stand in awe of their majestic beauty."

Sounds "awe.....full" to me. smile.gif
Rick
QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 15, 2007, 04:56 PM) *
In the spirit of dialogue, I ask you: Rick, what, for you, is the best choice of terminiolgy?

I think I have said this before. I call it nature (and Technologist calls it reality).

In Spinoza's pantheism, the universe (what I call nature) is god. Spinoza's "proof" starts by defining god as "that which there is none greater" and then simply shows that any portion of god not part of nature taken together with nature is greater than god and therefore a contradiction.

However, I have been able to find no justification for hypothesizing the existence of any kind of god whatever, especially one with any supernatural aspects or attributes.

One piece of evidence for the existence of divinity (god attributes) in the make-up of the universe is feelings of reverence or holiness that sometimes occur in people. However, the resulting intuition of the existence of anything supernatural may simply be an illusion built into the mind. This might be similar to the attraction to sweet tasting things built into people's minds. The god illusion would be something to be overcome in seeking knowledge, not something to be indulged in.

It would be nice to have a good philosophical proof that a universe without divinity in it would be different from the universe we observe. Then we would know that feelings of reverence are purposeful and not illusory.
Joesus
QUOTE
In general, the term "God" (or however you want to spell it) evokes a notion of monotheism in Western society. As you know, I think this conceptualization is wrong and misleading. To the extent that a wrong notion of a monotheistic god distracts people from reality, it does harm. Therefore, we can accomplish a double good by banishing the term from our discourse in favor of the term "nature." It simplifies language (which is good) and eliminates a source of misunderstanding (at best) or deception, which is also good.

Assuming the word God came about without the baggage, one could introduce any word they would and as the discussion progresses toward baggage claim it will be surrounded automatically by interpretation.
Words of themselves have no compelling influence tho they may trigger memories or programs of information in which the mind associates reality.

The word God does not force one to make assumptions. So you can come up with any word you want and conversation will still lend itself toward a choice in making assumptions, Like assuming that Changing the name changes the thing or no thing.

My word/church/belief/.....etc. is better than yours????????????? I seem to remember something about worshipping false idols. wink.gif
Lindsay
Questions: Rick, I notice that you never capitalize 'god'. How come?
Do you allow for the concept of 'spirit'?
Or are we just spirit-less clever animals with only bodies and a minds?
I love and respect animals as such, so don't get me wrong when I ask this question: In your opinion, are we human beings nothing more than clever animal beings?

IMO, if there was no divine nature--that is, no GØD--we would have no conscious awareness of self, no consciousness of past, future or the now. That is, no spiritual awareness.

In that sense I can accept that there was a time when there was no GØD and no personal consciousness we now know, only chaotic unconsciousness. As part of the on-going process of creation GØD evolved into the order of things which we have at this point in the NOW. In a way, we have only just begun, and we will always be in the NOW, if we choose.

In my opinion, the more of us who agree to participate in this divine process--this process of helping helping order evolve out of chaos, the better, the more heavenly our nature will become. We are also free to make it a hell. What a responsibility is ours!

EVANGELISM IS NOT MY STYLE, BUT
BTW, I admit that I want people, other than myself, especially my neighbours, to be good and law-abiding people. Why? Because it will be good for them and good for me, for the community and for the whole world.

I am being very "selfish" in my desire to have more and more people who agree to freely choose to be lovers of law and order, especially the moral law and order.

IS IT WRONG TO TELL PEOPLE GOOD NEWS?
I agree that it is wrong for me to "evangelize", that is, to try to get people join my church, and practice what I call my religion--which, BTW, is virtually ritual-free. But is it wrong for me to share the evangel--the good news--that it is possible for people to be a good, moral, ethical and law-abiding people without having to belong to any formal religion?

Why do I use the term GØD? I use the term 'GØD' as a symbol for the totality of divine nature--physical, mental and spiritual--which is total, universal and and all encompassing Spirit which helps make conscious goodness possible.

Rick, I agree with you that there is no evidence of a god who is separate from divine nature, which is all-pervasive. I, also, want to avoid concretizing this divine nature and limiting it any way shape or form, to physical things--even in a mental sort of way.

I also use GØD as the symbol for the spiritual impulse within me, which impels, not compels, me to freely choose and want to be a moral, ethical and loving human beings in all that I think, say and do.

One final point: Because GØD IS everything, GØD needs nothing, not even worship. GØD, works with Nature to supplies all we needs. It is up to us to be wise enough to love Nature and She will nuture us like a loving mother. Perhaps GØD is the husband of Nature.

That is my idea of good news--the gospel. What is yours?

=================================
Changing the subject: Why is it that every now and then, when I click on 'active to[pics' I get a blank page, with the word 'done' in the lower left corner.
Then I have to search around and use other ways to get to the topic I want.
Hey Hey
QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 17, 2007, 05:16 AM) *
In your opinion, are we human beings nothing more than clever animal beings?
So the evidence supports. And Lindsay, please note that in terms of evolutionary standing, it is quite likely that we will not succeed and therefore we have no special position in the universe. You need to understand that even if we were given some special biological position we would still be exposed to a plethora of uncontrollable external factors that expose us (the species) to many probably unsurmountable threats. If we get real (just a word, not reality!) then we could spend more time experiencing the fascinating universe (something the human brain can uniquely, on Earth, do) and not supporting a lost cause (religion) that is no more use to the human race than famine or disease. Although having said that, of course in evolutionary terms famine or disease might support worthwhile selection processes.
QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 17, 2007, 05:16 AM) *
IMO, if there was no divine nature--that is, no GØD--we would have no conscious awareness of self, no consciousness of past, future or the now. That is, no spiritual awareness.
As far as I know, there are no religious beliefs in chimpanzees (a conscious, self aware species).

And, interestingly, to connect the two items above, see: http://www.livescience.com/animals/070417_chimps_evolve.html
Joesus
QUOTE
In my opinion, the more of us who agree to participate in this divine process--this process of helping helping order evolve out of chaos, the better, the more heavenly our nature will become. We are also free to make it a hell. What a responsibility is ours!

In the words of the Siddha, If you ascend to meet God at the level of consciousness which God creates then all is experienced in perfect order. The masters who teach and assist also know that interfering with Gods order is forbidden, for to do so is to bring the mind to a level in which perception is less than Gods perception (Eating of the Fruit of Good and Evil, or Descending into duality and intellectual identification at the level of ignorance and ego).

Many spiritual leaders of the past have decided they have a better plan than God, and have themselves unintentionally led man against man in the role of visionary and example of Truth without exception.
If one could suggest they have a better vision, than another may judge any vision that is contrary to the assumed role model.
History is full of examples where the truest meaning and vision is suggested in all ways even at the threat of death.

Best intentions do not raise awareness to omniscience or omnipresence, and are usually based at a level of perception that still holds judgment in front of wisdom.

God has infinite patience. Mans patience has been by example about as long as one can hold onto a single thought.

"I and my Father are one." At the time these words were spoken, they were words not spoken from the concept of union but from Union.

"God," a word used by the son who was aware of the Father and without fear of implicating his name in any dogmatic sense because he did not envision man or God any less than his/her potential.

Fortunately for Humanity, the Masters of the Past and Present are not a co-dependant sort, burdened by the illusions of the ego. When they speak of God they speak to the level of the heart without the need to qualify any meaning to the needs of the intellect suspicious of meaning and understanding.

In other words they themselves did not consider themselves in need of intellectual definition to their words when they spoke because their delivery did not originate in duality, or in a place fearful of mixed understandings and separation of the spoken word and its origin. Their minds are clear, locked on God and not buffeted by thoughts of fear and judgment, or good intentions vulnerable to evil.

I don't think Jesus said to the invalid, "Rise and walk because I believe God is more powerful than your belief in your illness, and by the way I mean the God that is all things and everything and nothing and yadda yadda yadda.... rolleyes.gif
Joesus
QUOTE
As far as I know, there are no religious beliefs in chimpanzees (a conscious, self aware species).

As Far as you know is there a solid foundation of thought to believe Chimps contemplate the origins of Chimps in relationship to the Origin of Humans and the Universe? In other words a common point of creation. If they did they would certainly have experiences which would influence other chimps to seek experiences within themselves and spur interpretive designs on identifying an Origin or Originator.

The article as an example was fun.. happy.gif
Hey Hey
QUOTE(Joesus @ May 17, 2007, 09:04 AM) *

QUOTE
As far as I know, there are no religious beliefs in chimpanzees (a conscious, self aware species).

As Far as you know is there a solid foundation of thought to believe Chimps contemplate the origins of Chimps in relationship to the Origin of Humans and the Universe? In other words a common point of creation. If they did they would certainly have experiences which would influence other chimps to seek experiences within themselves and spur interpretive designs on identifying an Origin or Originator.

The article as an example was fun.. happy.gif

Why did you avoid making the other suggestion that they might spurn fairy stories and stick to the facts as they evolve (pun)?

Just for interest, was there ever a crime where the perpetrator was acquitted due to being told to do it by god, rather than being committed due to being insane? After all, swearing on the bible as a means of discouraging perjury is accepted practice in court.
Joesus
QUOTE

Why did you avoid making the other suggestion that they might spurn fairy stories and stick to the facts as they evolve (pun)?

Suggesting you could have a conversation (intelligent or otherwise) with a chimpanzee about fairies would have to follow the ability to have some authoritive background on fairies. So far your simply making suggestions.
Linking that article to the statement that chimpanzees are conscious, or self aware as a species wasn't an idea I agree with.
Why should I make a suggestion they would spurn fairy stories based on your previous assumptions?

QUOTE
Just for interest, was there ever a crime where the perpetrator was acquitted due to being told to do it by god, rather than being committed due to being insane? After all, swearing on the bible as a means of discouraging perjury is accepted practice in court.

People are judged in court by laws created and interpreted by people, some not necessarily in touch with God or Gods point of reference. Producing a Bible does not mean the court takes God into consideration with the same awareness as those who believed in compromising their union between God and man when one leaves God out of the equation.
Not all those who speak of God being their inspiration are judged as being insane, and simply making that reference does not condemn a man in court to insanity. There are generally other factors in play such as being out of touch with the human factor in its fear and prejudices.

Perhaps some deeper thought is required on your part to get past the generalization and assumptions being made or we could move your topic to the humor and jokes section if your just feeling spunky. wink.gif
Rick
QUOTE(Joesus @ May 16, 2007, 08:49 PM) *
... I seem to remember something about worshipping false idols. wink.gif

It is important to believe in the truth of the following assertion:

It is more important to avoid false beliefs than it is to hold true ones.
Rick
QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 16, 2007, 09:16 PM) *

Questions: Rick, I notice that you never capitalize 'god'. How come?
Do you allow for the concept of 'spirit'?
Or are we just spirit-less clever animals with only bodies and a minds?


1. The captialization of a proper name is reserved for beings that exist or occur in fiction. I capitalize the mythological god Zeus, for example. When writing about the fictional Jehova, the same applies. For the generic concept, "god" will suffice. I could go on about historical figures such as George Washington, but I think you get the idea.

2. How do you define spirit? For example, there was a bit of the spirit of fun in my first answer. One can be in good spirits, as on a happy occasion. The luminous fluid we sometimes call a kind of consciousness has also been called spirit. That doesn't mean there's anything supernatural going on.

3. I would delete the word "just." Human beings are magnificent (relatively speaking and in general). I can think of some notable exceptions.
Hey Hey
I was going to post the following replies. Then I thought, "No, don't bother!" tongue.gif

QUOTE(Joesus @ May 17, 2007, 05:23 PM) *
QUOTE
Why did you avoid making the other suggestion that they might spurn fairy stories and stick to the facts as they evolve (pun)?
Suggesting you could have a conversation (intelligent or otherwise) with a chimpanzee about fairies would have to follow the ability to have some authoritive background on fairies.
Strange though how some humans suggest they can have conversations with god, who is proported to have a superiority index much further from theirs than humans from chimps.
QUOTE(Joesus @ May 17, 2007, 05:23 PM) *
QUOTE
Why did you avoid making the other suggestion that they might spurn fairy stories and stick to the facts as they evolve (pun)?
So far your simply making suggestions.
Of course, you never make suggestions?
QUOTE(Joesus @ May 17, 2007, 05:23 PM) *
Linking that article to the statement that chimpanzees are conscious, or self aware as a species wasn't an idea I agree with.
Then you should read more. Here are few suggestions for the beginner:

Consciousness Comes from DNA:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1057,n,n
Evidence of self-awareness in the bottlenose dolphin:
http://www.earthtrust.org/delbook.html
First Evidence To Show Elephants, Like Humans, Apes And Dolphins, Recognize Themselves In Mirror:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...61030183310.htm
QUOTE(Joesus @ May 17, 2007, 05:23 PM) *
QUOTE
Why should I make a suggestion they would spurn fairy stories based on your previous assumptions?
Because it is as valid as the suggestion you do make.
QUOTE
Just for interest, was there ever a crime where the perpetrator was acquitted due to being told to do it by god, rather than being committed due to being insane? After all, swearing on the bible as a means of discouraging perjury is accepted practice in court.
People are judged in court by laws created and interpreted by people, some not necessarily in touch with God or Gods point of reference. Producing a Bible does not mean the court takes God into consideration with the same awareness as those who believed in compromising their union between God and man when one leaves God out of the equation.
Another instance where religion is a waste of time and space then.
QUOTE(Joesus @ May 17, 2007, 05:23 PM) *
QUOTE
Just for interest, was there ever a crime where the perpetrator was acquitted due to being told to do it by god, rather than being committed due to being insane? After all, swearing on the bible as a means of discouraging perjury is accepted practice in court.
Not all those who speak of God being their inspiration are judged as being insane.
No, (and in other contexts) they could be considered as simpletons, deluded, cowards, closed-minded, uneducated, uneducable, sheep or just plain stupid.
QUOTE(Joesus @ May 17, 2007, 05:23 PM) *
Perhaps some deeper thought is required on your part to get past the generalization and assumptions being made or we could move your topic to the humor and jokes section if your just feeling spunky. wink.gif
"Look at the means which a man employs, consider his motives, observe his pleasures. A man simply cannot conceal himself!" Confucius. I think deeply within the time constraints I have. Of course it will never be as deep as you achieve, as I haven't fallen into a mental abyss - I can leave my considerations and look at the world in front of my eyes and have a laugh, quite often at you. Or should I should move your topic to "Realms of the Ridiculus?" No, I'll just keep laughing.
Joesus
QUOTE
It is important to believe in the truth of the following assertion:

It is more important to avoid false beliefs than it is to hold true ones.

Beliefs change whether false or True.. Can't hold onto something if it isn't going to be permanent and avoiding something that isn't real would be wasted energy.

QUOTE
Strange though how some humans suggest they can have conversations with god, who is proported to have a superiority index much further from theirs than humans from chimps.

The index is created thru self/ego measure not Gods. Such a measurement is going to change and change again and again and again..etc.

QUOTE
Of course, you never make suggestions?

Don't believe I was leading to that assumption, only that you haven't really said anything that extends beyond your personal thinking when you linked the statement of conscious self aware chimps and your article.

QUOTE
Then you should read more. Here are few suggestions for the beginner:

Consciousness Comes from DNA:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1057,n,n
Evidence of self-awareness in the bottlenose dolphin:
http://www.earthtrust.org/delbook.html
First Evidence To Show Elephants, Like Humans, Apes And Dolphins, Recognize Themselves In Mirror:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...61030183310.htm

Your making assumptions again regarding consciousness and being self aware. The level of awareness in Humans and animals is not the same.

QUOTE
Another instance where religion is a waste of time and space then.

Well, you certainly are entitled to your opinion, but time and space are what they are. I don't think there is any condition relative to time and space that can qualify well used or wasted time and space other than personal opinion.

QUOTE
Not all those who speak of God being their inspiration are judged as being insane.
No, (and in other contexts) they could be considered as simpletons, deluded, cowards, closed-minded, uneducated, uneducable, sheep or just plain stupid.
Well that would be a bit one sided. There are also those who are recognized as genius, heroic, well accomplished, etc. Glass half full or half empty kinda thinking.

QUOTE
"Look at the means which a man employs, consider his motives, observe his pleasures. A man simply cannot conceal himself!" Confucius. I think deeply within the time constraints I have. Of course it will never be as deep as you achieve, as I haven't fallen into a mental abyss - I can leave my considerations and look at the world in front of my eyes and have a laugh, quite often at you. Or should I should move your topic to "Realms of the Ridiculus?" No, I'll just keep laughing.


So considering the measure of humanity at a spiritual level rather than at a level of judgment and disbelief could you be more objective about God and Mans relationship with God or are you convinced its all ridiculous?
Hey Hey
Well, now we've gotten that positioning out of the way, maybe we can get on with the discussion?
Joesus
QUOTE
I was going to post the following replies. Then I thought, "No, don't bother!"

So why did you bother? Your motives, your pleasure? The means are self evident..
Hey Hey
QUOTE(Joesus @ May 17, 2007, 10:13 PM) *

QUOTE
I was going to post the following replies. Then I thought, "No, don't bother!"

So why did you bother? Your motives, your pleasure? The means are self evident..

I didn't think you'd get it. Have some fun, you'll soon be dead! Mind you, you won't care if you had fun or not, then. Serious can also be fun, you know. Or was only the language exported?
Joesus
Ah, so spirituality inside of you is alive and well even in a state of denial.. happy.gif
Lindsay
Rick asks me (Lindsay G. King): "How do you define spirit?"

Here goes. It is a complex term with a wide variety of uses. There is much valuable information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit
QUOTE
An incorporeal but ubiquitous, non-quantifiable, substance or energy present individually in all living things. Unlike the concept of human souls, which is believed to be eternal and preexisting, a spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of the living being. This concept of the individual spirit is common among traditional peoples. It is therefore important to note the distinction between this concept of spirit and that of the pre-existing or eternal soul because belief in souls is specific and far less common, particularly in traditional societies....In religion and spirituality, the respiration of the human being has for obvious reasons been strongly linked with the very occurrence of life. A similar significance has been attributed to human blood. Spirit in this sense denotes that which separates a living body from a corpse and usually implies intelligence, consciousness and sentience...


My favourite dictionary, World Book, defines it as 1. the immaterial part of man; soul. 2. Man's moral, religious or emotional nature. 3. It can also be used to refer to any supernatural being, such as diety, fairy, elf, ghost, etc.
4. a person; personality...5. an influence that stirs up and rouses...6. courage, vigor; liveliness...7. enthusiasm and loyalty...8. a. the real meaning or intent...the prevailing character, quality, or tendncy...11. even mordant solutions used in dying...tin salts...alchemy...12. Spirit. God.

It is obviously a term with diverse meanings certainly related to our conscious awareness, which I consider to be both super and natural. If you do not, I use my spirit to agree to disagree in good spirits. smile.gif
Lindsay
Rick, you say that, human beings are magnificent (relatively speaking and in general). I can think of some notable exceptions."

I presume you to mean: Some human beings are magnificent and clever animals. Some--like you and me smile.gif --are richly coloured, decorated, grand, stately and splendid in appearance. Reminds me of peacocks, highly bred dogs, cats, and race horses.

Where do we place merciless psychopaths and sociopaths--beings who look like human beings but who behave like vicious, even cannibalistic, predators; beings who seem to be without one scintilla of human empathy, and no moral concscience whatsoever? The existence of such creatures is one of the reasons I let go of the theistic concept of there being a personal god who is all-powerful, all-loving and, supposedly, hears and answers human prayers.

Some atheist (non-theist?), or agnostic, is going to ask me: What about the GØD you speak of in your signature? Why doesn't He do something?

Pay attention to my definition: IMHO, GØD is NOT a He or a She, or a being who DOES things. The only verb that can be applied to GØD is the verb 'to be'. All doing, and all that that implies, is up to those of us who choose to be and to act as magnificent moral beings, including a-theists, which includes me. BTW, I can accept Nature, even Life, as a doublet for GØD.

The one thing I cannot accept is this: Nature, Life or GØD, is nothing more than short dream which will soon be over and from which there is no awakening--the false hope of atheism. I believe that life is a dream, but it is one from which there will be, I hope, an awakening. I am consoled by the fact that if I am wrong no one will ever be able to ridicule me for having a false hope.

But if I am right, think of the fun that I will have. And I don't plan to retire or take harp lessons.

But seriously, if life is NOT just a short frantic dream which will soon be over and followed by the sleep of death; if there really is life beyond the sleep of death, I offer, now, to be willing to be of service in any way I can. I offer now, to actually pay a visits to hell. It could be to Earth or other such planets, wherever.

IMHO, hell is not a place of eternal physical, mental and spiritual punishment, but a place--not unlike some parts of Earth (Canada, Europe, the USA, etc)--where too many people are trapped in small, short, limited and troubled dreams of hoped-for pleasures, wealth, power and vengeance.

ONLY THE WILLING WILL AWAKEN
In my visits, if I hear any of you talking in your troubled sleep, living your troubled dreams, but expressing the desire to be awakened, I will see what see I can do to be of help to you. But only if you really want someone to awaken you. Forgive me if I appear to be arrogant. I think of it as having fun. smile.gif

Interestingly, the Apostles' Creed says that even Jesus, "decended into hell..." HMMMMMM! Come to think of it, didn't he? Did he not do just that about 2000 years ago when he was born into this life? And we sure demonstrated how hellish we make, then and now. He said that, if we asked, he would come again, spiritually, accompanied by many others (angels?).

HMMMMM, again! Maybe he, including spiritual leaders of all faiths, have made more than one visit. Some of us, it seems, just do not want our sleep disturbed. O well! while some of us have a dream of Life, the Free-Will Bill gives any of us the right to dream the dream of Death. But given the choice, like Reb Tevya, in Fiddler on the Roof, I say, "To Life!" What is your toast?
Lindsay
QUOTE(Hey Hey @ May 17, 2007, 01:47 PM) *

I have nothing to say but I'll say it anyway

"How did I come to know what I know about the world and myself? What ought I to know? What would I like to know that I don't know? If I want to know about this or that, where can I get the clearest, best and latest information? And where did these other people about me get their ideas about things, which are sometimes so different from mine?" - H.G. Wells
HH, I love your signature--the essence of epistemology!
Hey Hey
QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 18, 2007, 07:30 AM) *

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ May 17, 2007, 01:47 PM) *

I have nothing to say but I'll say it anyway

"How did I come to know what I know about the world and myself? What ought I to know? What would I like to know that I don't know? If I want to know about this or that, where can I get the clearest, best and latest information? And where did these other people about me get their ideas about things, which are sometimes so different from mine?" - H.G. Wells
HH, I love your signature--the essence of epistemology!

I have an addiction to knowledge. If only I could understand everything I find. Sometimes I can't even be bothered to try, I just move on to the next fix.

I once read of a vision of the future where the only occupation for humans was to experience knowledge and nothing more. Would this still be bliss without an advanced (ultimate?) intellect to enable an understanding of all experiences? And how would the ultimate intellect be created to enable ALL humans to take advantage of the situation? And if it was, would all humans then be equal? And would that be accepted? And where would we go from there - God, GØD, Heaven, Nature, Universe, Dimensions, Oblivion, Boredom ... Extinction? Maybe the last few words really all mean the same thing. Didn't someone say something similar earlier?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am