Calling All Atheists

[Emproph]

Let's just dive right in...

Without the actual belief in eternal security, there’s no way to express the belief in eternal security – 'salvation,' life after death, etc.

Even if you were an atheist and were smart enough to imagine what it truly means to believe in the security of an eternal heaven,

the actual belief in an eternal heaven will always produce superior fruit -- in physical reality (inventions, etc.) -- in the sense that the very concept of love/creativity that is held, is bigger that that of the atheist.

Inherent within the idea that God is infinite security/love/beauty/heaven, etc., lies the capacity to express that concept.

An atheist will NEVER have that privilege.

Thus, this atheistic thought of infinite Love can never reach it’s full potential in physical reality.

Unlike: ♪ Jo Dee Messina – Delicious Surprise (http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1370371) ♪

To me, that is an expression of infinity, God, Love, Heaven. At this point in human history there are a million of those. Just as brilliant, just at beautiful and just as inspiring.

Save the religious and spiritual specifics, logically speaking, the idea of eternal security/heaven COULD ONLY be incoming information, because the logic of it dictates that Love (God) had to exist before the idea of it could be expressed.

It is the idea that only sense can come from sense. Only love could make love, as opposed to being the product of some 'random nothing.'

So, only sense can create or ‘make’ sense. Simply speaking, things-always-come-from-somewhere.

If love makes the most sense of all our lives, including the lives of a-theists, then it is the security of not only certainty that we all seek, but the best idea of certainty.

Even if that means giving up the confusion of God/heaven in order to be certain to love others as yourself (for the best result).

Atheist shmathiest at that point, Love is the operator.


So all ye atheists, what am I missing? Not that I have any real desire to convert you, I’m just consumed with the notion that I should be able to. :lol:

I’m serious :shifty:


PS, and believe me, the irony of an egomaniacal Christian is not lost on me... :cool: :rofl: :o


PPS, this is it.

Even if one is an atheist and you can understand what it means to believe in God, you can still never believe that a god created an atheist. Somehow I’m trying to suggest that only a god could create the thought of a god creating an atheist.

Is anybody seeing what I’m trying to say? The idea of creation has to come before the idea of nothing. “Nothing” not only does not create, the concept of it is in itself an illusion and does not exist.

The concept of “nothing” in and of itself had to be specifically designed and “created.”

an atheist can never believe in a god who believes in an atheist. Is that not the one defining thought that is off limits?

[Emproph]

Train - Calling All Angels (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAKF3_hCSNs)

[Alecto]

I'm not an atheist, strictly speaking, but identify more as agnostic. I don't believe in g(G)od(s), nor do I not-believe. It's more that I think that whatever does exist doesn't (and possibly shouldn't) have all that much influence on me while I"m here. If I'm a good person cause that's who I am, I figure that's gotta carry some sway, right?

I am just going to jump in and say how utterly ridiculous and offensive it is to say that atheists can't love the same as theists. It's basic de-humanizing (and, in fact, the same thing that is said over and over about gay relationships; it can't possibly be REAL love. Not as good as healthy, STRAIGHT love).


As for the logic of defending theism...scientists are finding that a lot of the basic concepts for logic start to break down the closer you get to the beginning of the universe (Like, the first two seconds after the big bang). Causes don't necessarily have to come before effects. As such, the "uncaused cause" argument doesn't really matter anymore. And, in fact, my vision of eternity isn't a God, but rather a universe that endlessly causes it's own creation and destruction. My personal "religion" involves no true beginning of the universe, just maybe the universe sort of as we know it.

[kara speltz]

I'm not an atheist, strictly speaking, but identify more as agnostic. I don't believe in g(G)od(s), nor do I not-believe. It's more that I think that whatever does exist doesn't (and possibly shouldn't) have all that much influence on me while I"m here. If I'm a good person cause that's who I am, I figure that's gotta carry some sway, right?

I am just going to jump in and say how utterly ridiculous and offensive it is to say that atheists can't love the same as theists. It's basic de-humanizing (and, in fact, the same thing that is said over and over about gay relationships; it can't possibly be REAL love. Not as good as healthy, STRAIGHT love).

As for the logic of defending theism...scientists are finding that a lot of the basic concepts for logic start to break down the closer you get to the beginning of the universe (Like, the first two seconds after the big bang). Causes don't necessarily have to come before effects. As such, the "uncaused cause" argument doesn't really matter anymore. And, in fact, my vision of eternity isn't a God, but rather a universe that endlessly causes it's own creation and destruction. My personal "religion" involves no true beginning of the universe, just maybe the universe sort of as we know it.

I totally agree with you. While my own life would feel pretty meaningless with out my relationship to God, I also know there was a time that I also considered myself agnostic. My own understanding is that we're all made in the image of God, whether we know that, or acknowledge that, doesn't change the fact that we are.

As I see it, people too often seem to have this need to focus on what divides us rather than acknowledging the simple fact that we are all united in a great oneness.

kara

[Emproph]

I am just going to jump in and say how utterly ridiculous and offensive it is to say that atheists can't love the same as theists. It's basic de-humanizing (and, in fact, the same thing that is said over and over about gay relationships; it can't possibly be REAL love. Not as good as healthy, STRAIGHT love).

That’s what I think I’m trying to say, we all love the same. But that the idea of love had to come before the idea of a God.

I’m trying to establish the connection between the known logic of love and the supposed ethereal idea of God.

I think there's a way to make it "palpable" :)

(or at the very least I'm determined to think that... :lol:)

[Zerbie]

Let's just dive right in...

Without the actual belief in eternal security, there’s no way to express the belief in eternal security – 'salvation,' life after death, etc.

Even if you were an atheist and were smart enough to imagine what it truly means to believe in the security of an eternal heaven,

the actual belief in an eternal heaven will always produce superior fruit -- in physical reality (inventions, etc.) -- in the sense that the very concept of love/creativity that is held, is bigger that that of the atheist.

Inherent within the idea that God is infinite security/love/beauty/heaven, etc., lies the capacity to express that concept.

An atheist will NEVER have that privilege.

Thus, this atheistic thought of infinite Love can never reach it’s full potential in physical reality.

So all ye atheists, what am I missing? Not that I have any real desire to convert you, I’m just consumed with the notion that I should be able to. :lol:


PPS, this is it.

Even if one is an atheist and you can understand what it means to believe in God, you can still never believe that a god created an atheist. ?[/B]

Patrick, ya know I love ya. Right?

The above is treading the proverbial thin ice. I really have to dispute the implication that atheists are not quite smart (you said even if an atheist is "smart enough" basically, to get what you're talking about.) The atheists I've known are about the most brilliant people I've EVER met.

When I called myself atheist I knew that I came from and would return to something that, for lack of appropriate words, I will describe as adhering to your "eternal security." It was because of that certainty that I knew this "God dude" who I kept hearing described in dismal terms flatly did not exist.

I hear you saying that someone who believes in God will always produce superior "fruits" to someone who does not. So tell me, darlin' E, how the guys who flew airplanes into the Trade Center a handful of years ago because they believed God would reward them have produced "fruit" superior to my atheist friend who, while maintaining a singing career, a marriage, and raising several little girls, has devoted most of his adult life to peace work and to building bridges between feuding faith communities, all out of his vision for the beloved community. Explain me that, Emproph.

I'm not with you on the "ideas" thing, again. I take it what I've gotten from your words is not what you intended to convey. Try again??

[Daniel]

Even if you were an atheist and were smart enough to imagine what it truly means to believe in the security of an eternal heaven,

the actual belief in an eternal heaven will always produce superior fruit -- in physical reality (inventions, etc.) -- in the sense that the very concept of love/creativity that is held, is bigger that that of the atheist.

Inherent within the idea that God is infinite security/love/beauty/heaven, etc., lies the capacity to express that concept.

An atheist will NEVER have that privilege.

Thus, this atheistic thought of infinite Love can never reach it’s full potential in physical reality.


Ok. I'm name dropping here, but having worked with Jonathan Miller , I beg to differ. A more creative atheist you will never meet. He was wont to gleefully pull out his wallet to show you pictures of his grandchildren.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Miller)

And speaking of things artistic- which seems part and parcel of fruitfulness- I have always been struck by the lack of artistry on the part of conservatives- something I witnessed (no pun intended) during my time spent in the Assemblies of God. Yes. There was abundance of belief in God. But there was also fear and distrust of "Art" and "Music" insofar that it did not serve that religion's evangelistic leanings. I have always thought this to be something of an irony. One was supposed to evangelize the world, yet not be contaminated by it. One could be a professional musician, yet this was not enough: one had to be a musician for Christ.

I have known more than several operatic singers who- as conservative Christians- had misgivings about singing roles that ran counter to their 'morality'. As such, they don't/didn't make for superior artists. Why? They were/are self-conscious and uptight. They equate acting 'like' a certain character with 'being' that character (which is not unlike how they see gay persons). In short: everything is black and white with them. And the world of art- the physical manifestation of imagination, of joy, depair and love- is anything but black and white.

Yes. It is true that the church- historically speaking- has had hand in creating, furthering and nuturing art and music. But those days are long behind us. That ended with 18th Century Enlightenment.

[Zerbie]

I have known more than several operatic singers who- as conservative Christians- had misgivings about singing roles that ran counter to their 'morality'. As such, they don't/didn't make for superior artists. Why? They were/are self-conscious and uptight. They equate acting 'like' a certain character with 'being' that character (which is not unlike how they see gay persons). In short: everything is black and white with them. And the world of art- the physical manifestation of imagination, of joy, depair and love- is anything but black and white.

.

Oh thank you for bringing this up! I hadn't thought to juxtapose this problem with a discussion of atheism, what a fascinating connection you make! Daniel's smart. ;) :tup:

I've run into problems with singer colleagues who refuse to fully participate in certain scenes because of their religious morality. I won't go into detail in public. But I can aver that this backing-away from playing the scene makes them poor performers, difficult colleagues, and unprofessional. Not to mention, it looks like they are unable to distinguish real life from Make Believe. If a singer has a moral problem with portraying certain scenes in a role, they should turn the role down. Not accept it, and then stand there stiff as boards during the scenes they disapprove of. It has an impact on the production as a whole, and as a scene partner, I can mention specific performances where I ended up looking somewhat bad because someone playing a character supposed to be in love with me acted repulsed instead.

[Rick336]

Save the religious and spiritual specifics, logically speaking, the idea of eternal security/heaven COULD ONLY be incoming information, because the logic of it dictates that Love (God) had to exist before the idea of it could be expressed.

It is the idea that only sense can come from sense. Only love could make love, as opposed to being the product of some 'random nothing.'


Love is an emotion like hate, fear, jealousy, embarrassment, saddness, and joy. It is a result of human brain activity. It is not a thing that exist outside the human body. You may see human behavior motivated by love but love itself is just an emotion produced by the brain. To say "only love can make love" makes no sense. It would be the same as saying that only embarrassment can make embarrassment or only jealousy can make jealousy.

Rick

[Emproph]

Patrick, ya know I love ya. Right?

The above is treading the proverbial thin ice. I really have to dispute the implication that atheists are not quite smart (you said even if an atheist is "smart enough" basically, to get what you're talking about.) The atheists I've known are about the most brilliant people I've EVER met.

I'm not with you on the "ideas" thing, again. I take it what I've gotten from your words is not what you intended to convey. Try again?? I was thinking that maybe I should have said "calling all agnostics."

I'll have to come back later to go through this more thoroughly. But just to give a sense of my mindframe with this, I'm trying to figure out if it's possible, or to what extent it's happened that an atheist or more likely an an agnostic has figured out (or has believed that they've figured out) the existence of God, or love's eternal nature, based on logic alone.

I'm sure I could have rephrased much of that post but I wanted to get the thought out before I lost it.

Thus, this atheistic thought of infinite Love can never reach it’s full potential in physical reality. I think I'm talking basic philosophy here from the a-theist/theist perspective. A parallel frame would be the science of physics, especially quantum physics -- basically the study of the nature of unseen energy through mathematics (logic). Where they're getting to the point now where they can, or almost can pinpoint where matter itself becomes non-physical. It doesn't disappear, it just transforms. Like how an electron appears at any given point around an atom without ever moving through the space in between -- at least not physically.

The "disappear" part of the electron's, for lack of a better word, existence, would be comparable with what we would call the after life -- the non-physical portion of our existence (if you believe in that).

So the physicists are determining this through mathematics, philosophers through logic. I'm sure there are many technological and other advantages to knowing where the energy disappears to when it comes to physics, but the advantages to being certain of an after-life would be the benefits that come from a life lived without the fear of death -- eternal extinction.

So I think that's at the heart of what I'm suggesting. Not that love cannot be expressed, just that the certitude of its eternal sovereignty would add that much more to it.

My contention is that there is an unbiased way to prove that through logic alone, and that's what I want to try and get at here. But first I need to understand the logic of atheism, which is probably why I'm skating on thin ice, so please bear with me.

There's a lot of interesting stuff here I've got to come back to, like this:

These are the fruits of atheism and agnosticism. Really embracing the fact that you're going to cease to exist in your lifetime will cultivate tremendous love and creativity.This is another thing I haven't taken into consideration enough, which may blow my theory right out of the water. ;)

[Rick336]

I'm trying to figure out if it's possible, or to what extent it's happened that an atheist or more likely an an agnostic has figured out (or has believed that they've figured out) the existence of God, or love's eternal nature, based on logic alone.

An atheist sees no evidence of god so it's not up to atheists to prove that god does or does not exist. It's the believer that claims that a god exists. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The logic of atheism seems clear. If there's a god...where is he? Where's the evidence? I'm talking about credible evidence, not evidence from a book that was written twenty centuries ago that also tells about talking donkies and people magically turning into salt.

And as far as "love's eternal nature", what is this? Explain what you mean by this. Are you talking about something that exist outside of human emotion? If so, where is it? Where's the evidence?

Rick

[ladyinred]

I'm just going to say it. I respect another's right to think what they want and believe what they want. I was on a forum that attacked atheists one time, and I said I would not join them in their attack on atheists, many of these people are dedicated to promoting human rights and also support rights for GLBT people. It is not my place to judge them, period, or to force my religious or spiritual convictions down their throat.Yes ,many of them are brilliant and creative as well. I can say there are people who have become atheist or agnostic because of religion (Being told they were going to hell, sound familiar?)And cannot reconcile their belief system with what they see as injustice or unfairness and unloving God.
I was even on a forum where someone remarked atheists are evil. I asked why? They could not give me a response. We in the LGBT community do not like to be marginalized and I feel it is just as unfair to do this to atheists.I absolutely refuse to be a part of that. I will take the stand, that I am not superior to someone because of my beliefs or convictions,in fact I am not superior to anyone.While all beliefs may not be on equal footing (And I'm talking about those that harm or denigrate others), all men are created equal.

[ladyinred]

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/social_contribution.html

[Emproph]

First of all, my beliefs about God/Jesus/Christianity are far from orthodox. When I say God, I’m talking about oneness, as in Everything is all one – we are all one, and that oneness is made of what we call unconditional love. So the Jesus that I believe in understands this, and thus the Christianity I am referring to is the one that holds this Love (God) first, and treat others as yourself as the goal.

Not the idolatry of supremacy that is often called Christianity today. Nor do I believe that one needs to accept Jesus as one’s savior in order to “get to heaven,” or even to understand oneness or Love as God. I pretty well agree with everything Buddha said and he was around before Jesus. Point being that neither the Bible nor Jesus are necessary to understand the oneness of Love, what I call God.

This is my goal.

I contend that God can be seen.

I contend that this can be explained.

If I can explain to an atheist how to see God and it works, they’d be able to explain it to other atheists infinitely better and more effectively than I could. The experiment so to speak would be repeatable -- while avoiding the conundrum of the need to "have faith" first.

This process could also work with stereotypical closet atheist conservative Christians if they weren’t insane. I don’t consider atheists/agnostics to be insane, therefore productive communication is much more likely.

This gets into some deep philosophy here, so not everyone is suited to it, but that’s really my whole point. Even if I convince no one, I want to be able to at least explain what I am saying in a way that even an atheist can understand it.

Long story short, I’m looking for all the holes in my theory of everything.

That said, I have no idea what it means to be atheist, so I am very sorry for having offended. You’re going to have to treat me like an anti-gay visitor when it comes to this, and this is precisely what I’m looking for. How do I discuss this in terms that will not offend or come across as typical condescension of people who are a-theist by people who are theist.

Like this:
Without the actual belief in eternal security, there's no way to express the belief in eternal security - 'salvation,' life after death, etc.

Even if you were an atheist and were smart enough to imagine what it truly means to believe in the security of an eternal heaven,

the actual belief in an eternal heaven will always produce superior fruit -- in physical reality (inventions, etc.) -- in the sense that the very concept of love/creativity that is held, is bigger than that of the atheist.

Inherent within the idea that God is infinite security/love/beauty/heaven, etc., lies the capacity to express that concept.

An atheist will NEVER have that privilege.

Thus, this atheistic thought of infinite Love can never reach it's full potential in physical reality.

First of all I think I’m wrong on that, at least the way I put it. Some of you have said some things that have really made me think.

Keeping in mind that the understanding and expression of unconditional love is the goal.

I think my argument there was that love expressed WITH the security of the knowledge of eternal life is superior to love expressed WITHOUT that security – perhaps not individually or always in practice, but at least in theory.

Two things come to mind. Some people may not be bothered by the thought of eternal extinction the way I imagine that they should be – the way I would be – so that’s projection on my part.

And secondly, I think the same argument could be made of the security of having enough money. Eternal life takes care of the fear of death/extinction, enough money takes care of the fears of life – but that’s NOT always a good thing. Too much security can sometimes be a corrupting influence.

Antony’s post touched on this idea from the opposite end:
These are the fruits of atheism and agnosticism. Really embracing the fact that you're going to cease to exist in your lifetime will cultivate tremendous love and creativity.
I recognize even within myself a certain complacency about life, and death for that matter, because I am not afraid of death itself – in the eternal extinction sense. And I despise the I’m “saved” and can therefore can sin my ass off, and you gays/liberals/atheists can go to hell (literally) attitude. That would probably be the worst form of corruption of the result of having that security of eternal life.

What also came to mind though, is that if an atheist came to understand oneness in the Love/God sense, then they would know even better than me, because I don’t understand atheism. THAT would be a superior perspective because then they would know both atheism AND theism, as opposed to one or the other.

They’d be the ultimate theist (utheism?). Kind of like a conservative who saw the light and became a liberal. They’re rare, but have a unique perspective that I would consider to be superior.

[Emproph]

I'm not an atheist, strictly speaking, but identify more as agnostic. I don't believe in g(G)od(s), nor do I not-believe. It's more that I think that whatever does exist doesn't (and possibly shouldn't) have all that much influence on me while I"m here. If I'm a good person cause that's who I am, I figure that's gotta carry some sway, right?
Yes. The Golden Rule, the ONLY sway there is – whether you call that kind of love “God” or not...
I am just going to jump in and say how utterly ridiculous and offensive it is to say that atheists can't love the same as theists. It's basic de-humanizing (and, in fact, the same thing that is said over and over about gay relationships; it can't possibly be REAL love. Not as good as healthy, STRAIGHT love).
Alecto I am very sorry for giving that impression. I agree with what you said, and I had no intention to suggest such. I consider people who believe in love, as in the golden rule, to be Christian and to believe in “God” more so than people who say they believe in a god of love, but then run around spreading supremacist hatred, whether it’s anti-gay or anti-Iraqi or whatever.
As for the logic of defending theism...scientists are finding that a lot of the basic concepts for logic start to break down the closer you get to the beginning of the universe (Like, the first two seconds after the big bang). Causes don't necessarily have to come before effects. As such, the "uncaused cause" argument doesn't really matter anymore. And, in fact, my vision of eternity isn't a God, but rather a universe that endlessly causes it's own creation and destruction. My personal "religion" involves no true beginning of the universe, just maybe the universe sort of as we know it. That’s exactly the type of discussion I’d like to get into here (if possible). I heard the same thing about how mathematics themselves break down at that point, but we all don’t know mathematics, we all do know thought however, and I think there’s a philosophical parallel that mirrors that same conclusion.

Where we find that the point where the logic breaks down leads us to a gap that is so small, that the “leap of faith” necessary to cross it is acceptable to even atheist or agnostic thinking. Maybe that's what you mean by the "uncaused cause" argument.

See, this has all been argued before, perhaps I have NOTHING new to offer...:D. (No, really. :shifty:)

Again, it’s just a theory on my part (the provable part, not the theory part), I’m totally biased. But from what I’ve been able to determine from years of attempting to look at my own biased perspective objectively, that philosophical explanation above seems to be a good way of putting it. (not that I expect anyone to agree with that yet anyway)
I am just going to jump in and say how utterly ridiculous and offensive it is to say that atheists can't love the same as theists. It's basic de-humanizing (and, in fact, the same thing that is said over and over about gay relationships; it can't possibly be REAL love. Not as good as healthy, STRAIGHT love) . I totally agree with you. While my own life would feel pretty meaningless with out my relationship to God, I also know there was a time that I also considered myself agnostic. My own understanding is that we're all made in the image of God, whether we know that, or acknowledge that, doesn't change the fact that we are.

As I see it, people too often seem to have this need to focus on what divides us rather than acknowledging the simple fact that we are all united in a great oneness.

karaI agree with you Kara. Especially about that we are all united in a great oneness and it doesn’t matter whether or not we call it God, unity is the highest good.

I’m not trying to focus on what divides us for the sake of it, I didn’t realize I would come across so divisive, so I acknowledge that I am very ignorant as to how to avoid this.

And I’ve thought about that over the past day. I’ve never not believed in God, I’m clueless – to my detriment. Please just know that I am sincere and help me out if you can to say things better so that I don’t come across as insulting and condescending when talking about atheism/agnosticism.

I never had to think about the "offense" involved, because I don't identify with it --again, to my lack.

-Patrick

I hear you saying that someone who believes in God will always produce superior "fruits" to someone who does not. So tell me, darlin' E, how the guys who flew airplanes into the Trade Center a handful of years ago because they believed God would reward them have produced "fruit" superior to my atheist friend who, while maintaining a singing career, a marriage, and raising several little girls, has devoted most of his adult life to peace work and to building bridges between feuding faith communities, all out of his vision for the beloved community. Explain me that, Emproph.
UGH! That’s terrible. I’m an HORRIBLE HORRIBLE PERSON. I would NEVER mean that. Unless I was brain damaged, or a closet idolater “Christian” conservative.

They may have ‘believed’ in the god – as in their own egos, but they certainly weren’t worshiping any god of Love. I need to start using the word Love instead of the word God, to avoid the religious/dogma bull, so that at least my intention is understood.

And to that end, and I’ve always believed this and I’m sure I’ve said it around here before, if you believe in love, you believe in God. Calling it God is irrelevant and inconsequential. Like I said, to me, any atheist who believes in love/the golden rule, is a Christian and believes in God – in my book.

Unconditional love is their god in the sense that that’s what’s most important to them, that’s what they “worship.” Doing what is right is what “rules” their lives. And Christian in the adjective sense. They are Christ-i-an in nature, they are loving in nature.

I think my problem is that I’ve gotten so used to filtering out the blasphemy of their (faux christians) message when they’re talking God/Jesus and the Bible, that I forget to clarify the meaning of MY message when I’m using the same words, phrases, and even contexts, as with my original post in this thread.

I hope that clarifies my position. And good Lord, thank God I’ve got 800 posts under my belt, I can just imagine the bloodbath if I were a first-timer... You were gracious in your response. Thank You for being patient with me. AND AGAIN, if that’s not clear, let me know.

And to further clarify, I realize I'm still sounding like "those atheists," when really I could probably include you and Daniel at least in that lot of "atheists/agnostics" I know and love. So I'm trying to generalize for the sake of simplicity, not to depersonalize -- or at least I realize the risk of depersonalization that can be perceived by generalizing, and I take this into account and don't mean to do this for reasons other than brevity.

[Emproph]

Careful now, it’s a touch racy..


Cher - If I Could Turn Back Time

-8261273839289416094

[u-dog]

Let's talk about a total LACK OF SUBTLETY!!

Those big 24 Inch guns rising up and lowering down in their turrets ??? :lol: :lol:


And then she actually STRADDLES one of them. :eek:

Amazing.

[Emproph]

And speaking of things artistic- which seems part and parcel of fruitfulness- I have always been struck by the lack of artistry on the part of conservatives
[And everything in-between]
Yes. It is true that the church- historically speaking- has had hand in creating, furthering and nuturing art and music. But those days are long behind us. That ended with 18th Century Enlightenment.

I clarified a little bit earlier that the way I meant to present the “superior fruits” was in theory, not necessarily in practice.

With the non-creative Assemblies of God people, clearly believing and certain of God, but not creative, upon further reflection of what I wrote, I think I was suggesting something like, if you could take their certitude of heavenly life/God/Jesus and add it to the creativity of a fearless (atheist) artist, then THAT would be superior.

The fearless or non-judgmental part comes first though. And of course since Love doesn’t judge, Love is going to inspire those who don’t judge what it has to say. Come to think of it, what would we do without the certitude of that objective perspective?

Atheists, society’s natural dogma innoculators. Interesting thought. Then again, I see that as even more proof of Love’s perfect plan.
~~
I'm curious...does anyone know of a living Christian producing astonishingly great art?Same theme: Or a living atheist creating great philosophy? (or a dead one for that matter.)

Not sayin' they don't exist, I just want to see one. I'm almost getting concerned now. There is such a thing as atheist philosophers isn't there?

[Emproph]

Let's talk about a total LACK OF SUBTLETY!!

Those big 24 Inch guns rising up and lowering down in their turrets ??? :lol: :lol:


And then she actually STRADDLES one of them. :eek:

Amazing.

But more disturbingly, since when is a gay man not familiar with that video...

[Emproph]

An atheist sees no evidence of god so it's not up to atheists to prove that god does or does not exist. It's the believer that claims that a god exists. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.Agreed.

The logic of atheism seems clear. If there's a god...where is he? Where's the evidence?
See now to my experience, I would call that agnosticism. Because the question still exists.

To me, true atheism suggests a position that an ordering force of any kind cannot possibly ever be proven – Perhaps this mindset is rarer than I think?

And if you see love, you see God. ‘Taint no “he” any more than "He's" a star. That’s a bit more accurate a description of where I’m starting from.

I'm talking about credible evidence, not evidence from a book that was written twenty centuries ago that also tells about talking donkies and people magically turning into salt.

I understand that, and I’m not suggesting that anyone should just “believe” in something, like a book, or EVEN my first hand eye-witness. But I am starting from my own right here right now eye-witness, WITH the contention that it is possible to see for yourself what I see. NOT that it’s probable though.

It’s taken me nigh on 20 years to go through every possible combination of thought to get those brain connections to be able to see the process itself of seeing the boundless Love that is called God, but I think I’ve done it. That not exactly true, it actually does happen. and more importantly I think I can explain how it happens.

It's actually repeatable. It's the sight of perfection, and yes, it IS all in your mind.

But like I said before, not everyone is intellectually suited to this level of brain activity/organization. I would say that every brain is capable of it, but not every personality is even desirous of entertaining the complex thought concepts that maybe necessary to see what I want to talk about. Even I’M only capable of it part of the time!

But that's really my whole point. I want to be able to simplify that, soundbite the explanation of perfection if you will.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I think I can explain perfection.


I heard that. Yuck it up kids...
~~
And as far as "love's eternal nature", what is this? Explain what you mean by this. Are you talking about something that exist outside of human emotion? If so, where is it? Where's the evidence?

Rick

Yes, I am suggesting that. That's what I mean when I say the word God. And that’s what I want to get into here at some point. The logical evidence of the independence of love.

To answer this next part would require getting into it. But first I need to establish some level of trust when it comes to talking about this subject, and so far I’ve been having a bit of a hard time with that.

Let me at least say that I’m approaching the subject with the idea that the existence of what we know of as unconditional Love itself had to exist before to idea to create brain circuitry that was capable of experiencing love – and all other lesser emotions.

Love is an emotion like hate, fear, jealousy, embarrassment, saddness, and joy. It is a result of human brain activity. It is not a thing that exist outside the human body. You may see human behavior motivated by love but love itself is just an emotion produced by the brain. To say "only love can make love" makes no sense. It would be the same as saying that only embarrassment can make embarrassment or only jealousy can make jealousy.

Rick

Unconditional love, or God as I call it, had to come first before all the conditional human facets of that “emotion” could also exist, including evil.

Believe me, I’m ready and raring to go on this, but it’s not going to help the situation if you and others think that I’m not being respectful of your and others’ feelings and perspective on the subject.

[Emproph]

Just suppose you were a psychotherapist and you had never heard or read anything about the dogma of Christianity.

Just suppose you had a client who is explaining his internal world to you.

Just suppose he had told you he often has conversations with a man who died over 2000 years ago.

Just suppose you question your client as to what this person looked like and he answers he does not know. When you question his not knowing, he answers "The man I speak to is invisible."

Just suppose you ask him for more details about this invisible man and he answers that the invisible man was his own father and son and the Holy Ghost all at the same time.

Just suppose you press for more information and you are told that this invisible person is really three people but remains one.

Just suppose your client tells you that this invisible man's mother never had sexual relations yet gave birth to this man.

Just suppose your client tells you when asked where this invisible man lives that he tells you he lives up there in the stratosphere.

Just suppose your client tells you that once a week he partakes in the ritual of eating this man's flesh and drinking his blood in a mass ceremony with many other people.

Just suppose your client tells you that he will never die because he is going to a place where people will live forever.

Just suppose your client tells you that even though his body will be consumed his soul, that is also invisible, will live forever.

Just suppose your client tells you that he will meet all of his deceased friends and relatives in this place high above the clouds.

Just suppose the client tells you that twice a week he visits a man, who is unseen, in a little cubicle to listen to the crimes he has committed during the week. If the crimes are severe he is told to say a "Hail Mary" prayer ten times depending upon the gravity of the crime and they will be excused.

Just suppose your client tells you that there are certain laws he must follow or he will be punished in a sea of fire for eternity.

Just suppose your client tells you that there is a certain man called the Devil who watches over him in that sea of fire to be sure he suffers.

Just suppose your client tells you that it is okay to suffer pain during your lifetime because he will be rewarded for his suffering after he dies.

Just suppose you have to diagnose your client for a Mental Status Exam, what would be your diagnoses?

by Dr. N. Joseph Newton www.atheistfellowship.com

Which begs the question, if I’m truly inane, and have the capacity to recognize my own inanity, would that not make me nane?

[Emproph]

Are you saying that the human race can't be good without God?I'm saying good itself is God. But conscious.

[Emproph]

..but without the inherent "evil" connotation normally associated with the word atheists. :rolleyes:
I'm just going to say it. I respect another's right to think what they want and believe what they want. I was on a forum that attacked atheists one time, and I said I would not join them in their attack on atheists, many of these people are dedicated to promoting human rights and also support rights for GLBT people. It is not my place to judge them, period, or to force my religious or spiritual convictions down their throat.Yes ,many of them are brilliant and creative as well. I can say there are people who have become atheist or agnostic because of religion (Being told they were going to hell, sound familiar?)And cannot reconcile their belief system with what they see as injustice or unfairness and unloving God.

I was even on a forum where someone remarked atheists are evil. I asked why? They could not give me a response. We in the LGBT community do not like to be marginalized and I feel it is just as unfair to do this to atheists.I absolutely refuse to be a part of that. I will take the stand, that I am not superior to someone because of my beliefs or convictions,in fact I am not superior to anyone.While all beliefs may not be on equal footing (And I'm talking about those that harm or denigrate others), all men are created equal.

Lady in red I agree with what you said, and I think you stated it very eloquently. I hope that from all I've written since, you've gotten a different impression of what I'm talking about.

It's about me, not them. I basically want to play philosophy hardball with an atheist who's game. But that might be too much too ask of this forum. Is it? Am I asking too much? Is it too contentious a subject for Soulforce?

Maybe it is, and maybe it's my fault for not recognizing this, but it's kind of hard to talk about non-theism without talking about the actual human beings who are non-theistic.

Or maybe I'm wrong about that too..

[u-dog]

Emproph,

I have ABSOLUTELY no interest in participating in this thread, but I enjoy a good game of philosophical hardball once in a while and see no reason that you and Rick can't HAVE AT IT. Just be careful with each other, OK? We all love you both and don't want to see anyone get hurt or anything valuable get broken (like your relationship with each other).:love:

You two keep checking in with each other about process and if we get concerned we will do what my wife used to do when our kids were Wrasslin in the other room. We'll poke our heads in and ask: "Is this still fun for everyone?" :)

Dave

[nmwolfboy]

Patrick, this thread's over my head! :eek: :confused: :laughing:

However, i've a suggestion in case your pursuit of debate on this topic doesn't pan out here at SF. Bishop Spong is a vocal proponent of nontheism. One of his books that addresses this topic (among others) has spawned a message board (http://forums.prospero.com/sp-bishopspong) where you might find some folks spoiling for juicy debate on the topic.

Just a thought - i don't know if you'd find it helpful or not. :D

Pax :dove:

scott

[Zerbie]

Yes. The Golden Rule, the ONLY sway there is – whether you call that kind of love “God” or not...


They may have ‘believed’ in the god – as in their own egos, but they certainly weren’t worshiping any god of Love. I need to start using the word Love instead of the word God, to avoid the religious/dogma bull, so that at least my intention is understood.

And to that end, and I’ve always believed this and I’m sure I’ve said it around here before, if you believe in love, you believe in God. Calling it God is irrelevant and inconsequential. Like I said, to me, any atheist who believes in love/the golden rule, is a Christian and believes in God – in my book.

Unconditional love is their god in the sense that that’s what’s most important to them, that’s what they “worship.” Doing what is right is what “rules” their lives. And Christian in the adjective sense. They are Christ-i-an in nature, they are loving in nature.

evity.

Oh God Emproph!!!! :lol: :lol: (I guess that should read "Oh Love Emproph!:lol: :lol: )

By your system, I was always a Christian, never an atheist, and presumably everyone I met (while I was young anyway, not the peeps I've met recently, like this forum) who claimed to be a Christian was an atheist. And my atheist best guy bud in college is also Christian.

In which case, I can't possibly explain to you what the atheists are thinking because I've never been able to understand them myself.

You and I have backwards definitions in common, to a great degree. (I'll have to start a thread explaining how my definition of "Christian" got royally screwed up to mean its opposite, but let's discuss that later.)

I've always become cold with fury when people denounce atheists (oops, I mean Emproph's Christians) as being dangerous, untrustworthy, even evil: because one becomes an atheist (darnit I mean Christian!) if one sees past the belief in a self-centered white dude on a throne in the sky to the heart of oneness that is the universe.

Atheism (some day I'll get it right, I mean Christianity), to me, meant: the entire universe is interconnected, the life of a star billions of years ago created the atomic particles that are now my body, which in less than a century will fertilize the earth, bla bla bla, and the one thing that somehow continues is a kind of, let's call it consciousness, and from that consciousness I know that all animated beings share consciousness too: they suffer, they hurt, they hunger, they long, they feel, they love, and who am *I* if I do not strive to comfort their hurt, feed their hunger, uphold and respect as sacred their ability to love?
That to me, was the definition of atheism (christianity???), so when I hear you ask how can an atheist understand love, I hear, How can one who edicates their whole being to loving service of life itself, understand love? And so your entire question made no sense to me.

[Daniel]

And to that end, and I’ve always believed this and I’m sure I’ve said it around here before, if you believe in love, you believe in God. Calling it God is irrelevant and inconsequential. Like I said, to me, any atheist who believes in love/the golden rule, is a Christian and believes in God – in my book.

Of course, an atheist would disagree with you. :D But you know what? Your line of thinking is not unlike what I have heard from various Buddhist's, who maintain that those who do Buddhist practice are 'Buddhists' no matter their faith. For them, if one is doing the practice (meditation etc), one is involved in being (revealing Buddha nature) rather than belief- and as such- this reveals a generosity and open heartedness on their part. That said, they are suspicious of the kind of thinking you expouse- that being that because one experiences love or compassion this is synonymous with 'God'. Why? Because it reveals a dualistic framework.

The person who is looking at the world through the lens of dualism 'sees' everything, whether is in external or internal, as though it is an object. And as such, this reveals what is called subject-object consciousness. To 'think' differently, to get out of this subject-object consciousness, is the whole point of a plethora of spiritual practice. And while it may seem paradoxical, these spiritual practices, if one looks closely at how they are used, have one thing in common: they aim to 'transcend' subject-object conscious through concentration practice, that is, the focusing of the mind on an external or internal object. In other words, one uses 'objects' to get beyond 'objects'.

This is why the Hindu who practices his mantra (internal object) in his cave for 15 years comes out of that experience saying things like "I am God". To the dualistic mind, it sounds like the guy has gone mad (and maybe he has! :lol: ) But the point I am trying to make here is that it is folly to use words and logic to convince others of things-which-are-not-things- that is- that which lies beyond the power of words and logic.

This is why the Zen people have their Koans and the Catholics their Hail Mary's. They are tools, and not, stictly speaking, the same as what they point to.

"All instruction is but a finger pointing to the moon; and those whose gaze is fixed upon the pointer will never see beyond. Even let him catch sight of the moon, and still he cannot see its beauty."

Though the Christian and the Buddhist both have esoteric practices which are intended to take the practioner beyond what is considered the smaller self or ego, what they posit in terms of ultimate reality is entirely different. For the Buddhist, there is no "God'. Yet they experience love and compassion as their Christian practitioner does.

From an empirical point of view, it would seem that the nature of man is what is in evidence here, and the atheist would probably agree with that. :D

[davidb]

Calling All Angels-Jane Siberry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUaXa--g900

One of my favorite moments from Six Feet Under.

[Joe Brummer]

I have been reading and thinking about a response to this thread since its birth. Aside from the fact I am an athiest, and I find this whole attitude that atheists cannot love without it being from god offensive I have thought out this response. I apologize if it offends, since that is not my intent.

My intent is to show the bigger picture that tends to get lost in our short lifespans, but over the course of history...how many gods have their been? How many doctrines have we seen, yet love has remained as it is. Love is not from god, but from us. Love lives inside us, it is just a part of us as is breathing and living. If you were to take this entire thread and change the word "love" to some other emotion like anger or greed would it change the dynamic you are striving for?

for example, here is Emorphs statement, but the words changed to show a different emotion, but just as powerful of an emotion. See how it changes the thinking of this thread:

Emorph wrote (with my changes):

They may have ‘believed’ in the god – as in their own egos, but they certainly weren’t worshiping any god of anger. I need to start using the word anger instead of the word God, to avoid the religious/dogma bull, so that at least my intention is understood.


The intention changes as the emotion changes. What Emorph isn't seeing is that Love is just an emotion, so is anger, greed, lust, joy and happiness. When you play with the words, things change. I hope you view changes as well as it is pretty offensive to those of us who do not believe in a god.

I remind everyone, if you want respect for your beliefs, then you must give that respect to others beliefs. I think Emorphs comments were sincerely curiosity, but nontheless we must respect that love is an emotion.

if you want to substitute a word for "god" then try "truth".

[Emproph]

if you want to substitute a word for "god" then try "truth".

"Truth" it is. :tup:


And just for starter practice..

There has to be bigger before there can be smaller.

[Vortex]

First off, I know I'm coming into this late but I find this topic most intriguing, thanks for starting the post Emproph.

I think my argument there was that love expressed WITH the security of the knowledge of eternal life is superior to love expressed WITHOUT that security – perhaps not individually or always in practice, but at least in theory

Is this “security of the knowledge of eternal life” you speak of not a condition itself? If so it would seem to me that any ‘love’ based of this premise would too be conditional. So if I love someone not knowing that I will be rewarded with everlasting life or welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven or all the other great things promised by a dogma, how is my love less valuable to that of someone who loves knowing all these things?

Two things come to mind. Some people may not be bothered by the thought of eternal extinction the way I imagine that they should be – the way I would be – so that’s projection on my part.

And secondly, I think the same argument could be made of the security of having enough money. Eternal life takes care of the fear of death/extinction, enough money takes care of the fears of life – but that’s NOT always a good thing. Too much security can sometimes be a corrupting influence.


We have all observed the consequences of fear. It is out of fear and the hatred that comes with it that that the very necessity of these forums and the discourse that it facilitates has arisen. Violence, anger, and hatred all traced back to fear. I operate on a basic premise that anything done out of fear (in the psychological sense) is ultimately corrupt and I challenge anyone to refute this claim. Why then should my belief in God, or eternal life then be based upon fear.


It’s taken me nigh on 20 years to go through every possible combination of thought to get those brain connections to be able to see the process itself of seeing the boundless Love that is called God, but I think I’ve done it. That not exactly true, it actually does happen. and more importantly I think I can explain how it happens.

It's actually repeatable. It's the sight of perfection, and yes, it IS all in your mind.

But like I said before, not everyone is intellectually suited to this level of brain activity/organization. I would say that every brain is capable of it, but not every personality is even desirous of entertaining the complex thought concepts that maybe necessary to see what I want to talk about. Even I’M only capable of it part of the time!

But that's really my whole point. I want to be able to simplify that, soundbite the explanation of perfection if you will.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I think I can explain perfection.


I heard that. Yuck it up kids...

Wow. These statements are quite something. I've read them over several tmes now and... wow. They are either the work of an insane person or a genius. Now which is it E:lol: .

In all seriousness I really want to understand this discovery of yours but it is going to take some more explanation.


Vortex

[Emproph]

I think my argument there was that love expressed WITH the security of the knowledge of eternal life is superior to love expressed WITHOUT that security

Is this “security of the knowledge of eternal life” you speak of not a condition itself? If so it would seem to me that any ‘love’ based of this premise would too be conditional.

Vortex you are a genius. I was suggesting exactly that that condition was necessary to experience the full potential of its meaning without realizing the INHERENT FLAW within that thought.

I got chills after reading that and my hair stood on end for about a half an hour.

It is the atheist love, devoid of the security of ANY condition, including security itself, that is superior.

Which then begs the question, can theist love ever acheive that?

[Emproph]

I operate on a basic premise that anything done out of fear (in the psychological sense) is ultimately corrupt and I challenge anyone to refute this claim. Why then should my belief in God, or eternal life then be based upon fear.

oh, I’m feeling most grasshoppery master.. Nor should one’s non-belief in God, or non-belief in eternal life then either be based on fear..

Wow. These statements are quite something. I've read them over several tmes now and... wow. They are either the work of an insane person or a genius. Now which is it E

I think it’s clear that I’m clinically inane. Try as you may, you’ll never even get an honest definition of sinane (sic) or genius out of me.

In all seriousness I really want to understand this discovery of yours but it is going to take some more explanation.

Funny you should ask, I'm having this problem with the idea of nothing...so far I’ve figured out that it’s an illusion, but now I’m wondering how such an inanity actually came into being in the first place, when clearly there's no such thing. How could nothing come up with the idea of nothing when nothing is impossible to exist?

Even nothing is impossible for God.

[Emproph]

What is Atheism? I have always been taught, and I am sure incorrectly, that atheists are the equivalent to satanists. I am sure that you can know where those teachings came from. I have been more and more curious about what it really is beyond the rhetoric I have been taught.

Any info or websites that will give me a better understanding would be much appreciated. I have used ask.com and did some searching. However, I know there are a few of you in here and I just wanted to know of some "good" sites that you all would recommend.

Thanks tons,
Scott

Hey Scott,

Think about it as a-theism, as in not-theism, or nontheism, as listed below.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism):
theism — roughly, the belief that gods or deities exist
atheism — roughly, an absence of belief in any gods or deities, or a belief that gods or deities do not exist at all.

Some classifications group atheism and agnosticism together under the classification of nontheism — absence of clearly identified belief in any deity.

It's an easy read and a good overview of the different theisms.

Also Google Freethinker, or Freethinkers. There's a lot of good stuff out there (as well as in here :rainbow:).

Also www.ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.ReligiousTolerance.org) should go on your favorites list.

-Patrick

[sjbouza]

Emproph,

Thanks for the link and the explaination. I mean really I knew that I was always taught incorrectly, well I had a feeling anyway. I never knew it was that simple, because what I was taught and atheist was is so much more indepth. I look back and laugh at it now, maybe I shouldnt though.

The link to Religious Tolerance is great, thanks a million. Yes it is NOW in my favorites on my ibook G4. Yea I am one of "those guys". :eek: I absolutley HATE PC AND WINDOWS in any version.

Anyway, thanks a million again.
Scott

[edgelessdepths]

Emproph,

I don't post often on these threads but your topic caught my eye.

I am an atheist, defined to me as the lack of belief in a god(s)/goddess(s) existing per evidence that it/he/she/they exist.

Let me see if I have my head around what you are trying to say:

1) You seem to think that for a person to function (you mentioned brain connections) a sort of "supreme love" would have to exist first.


My reply: First as Rick mentioned what proof is there that a love of this sort exists/existed? Also, as far as scientists know emotions such as love are just that, emotions. They aren't special, they are simply a part of our body; chemicals being produced due to stimuli.

2) I gathered from context that you view love as a superior emotion.

My reply: I don't see why there is any reason to view that the emotion of love is in any way superior to other emotions.
Emotions and actions are only relatively superior depending on the society you live in and what is beneficial for the continuation of that society (and hence its people).

3) That a belief in an eternal existence somehow makes for a superior love. Though you seem to be reconsidering that position?

My reply: I frankly don't understand that position at all. I was a Christian up until my teenage years and was also briefly a Pagan. My beliefs or lack-there-of never affected how I felt about love or how I loved. My care and concern for people was/is independent of my religious beliefs or the absence of them.

4) You don't understand what it means to be an atheist.

My reply: To me being an atheist simply means that I don't consider there to be enough evidence to believe in a god existing. I have felt "god" before but now consider those experiences to be bogus; brought on be a great desire to feel what those around me purported to feel.

5) That something you are calling "love" or recently "truth" existed before existence.

My reply: Again, what proof do you have of this existence? It sound like that type of thing that cannot be proven and hence no atheist will accept it as sound evidence.

Hope this helps you understand at least one atheist's position. :)

- Elsa

[Emproph]

5) That something you are calling "love" or recently "truth" existed before existence.

My reply: Again, what proof do you have of this existence? It sound like that type of thing that cannot be proven and hence no atheist will accept it as sound evidence.

Hope this helps you understand at least one atheist's position. :)

- Elsa
Thank you Elsa, it does. I think you confirmed three other person's exact sentiments, very succinctly.

The "proof" is pure logic, available to anyone. So I think exploring that is the next step. Nothing new under the Sun per se, but this time we're almost 7 Billion "nothing news under the sun" strong. I contend that this is an experiment that can/will, and is being tested, and about to be proven.

Science, religion, and philosophy are all just different parts of the elephant. Each is catching up with the other. As I understand it, you want to see it through science in the provable sense. Proof of the afterlife or a "god" could only be mathematical in that sense, and they've even determined the point where that "logic" breaks down.

And that's the ultimate conundrum of oneness. One is the ultimate freedom, it is infinite simplicity. It's the first possible thing that could happen. It's the only thing that could be. The ultimate logic requires illogic, it can never be purely logical.

Without oneness first, there can be no separateness. Without unconditional love first, there can be no idea of conditional love, and all negative emotions. Nothing doesn't generate itself. It can't, the concept itself does not exist. There literally is no such thing as the idea of nothing.

It's the proverbial "rock" that's too big for God to lift. Even God cannot create nothing, but, an "all powerful Love" who is God, could definitely make the illusion of the idea of nothing, and entire universes based on it.

Without the idea of nothing, everything just IS (all one).

That's just the standpoint I'm at, not an explanation - yet. ;)

I haven't even totally replied to your post, but thank you. I think I know how to approach this now, not that I'm going to "convert any atheists" or anything, but hopefully I'll make more sense while making a fool of myself.. :D

I swear to you, I am convinced that understanding the concept of nothing is the key to the universe.

[Rick336]

See now to my experience, I would call that agnosticism. Because the question still exists.

To me, true atheism suggests a position that an ordering force of any kind cannot possibly ever be proven – Perhaps this mindset is rarer than I think?

And if you see love, you see God. ‘Taint no “he” any more than "He's" a star. That’s a bit more accurate a description of where I’m starting from.

To me, Atheism is not saying that a god can't be proven. It's saying that evidence of a god has yet to be proven. Some may consider that to be Agnosticism. I prefer to call it being a non-believer; a person who sees no evidence in God, Satan, spirits, demons, angels, ghosts, unicorns, leprechans, elves, fairries, gremlins, zombies, or any invisible beings or supernatural events that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

As far as "seeing" love; I think what you mean is seeing acts of love. Nobody can see love because love is a human emotion, not something you can see. Acts of love happen all the time and it has nothing to do with the existence of a god. Love is an emotion produced by brain waves. It has nothing to do with an imaginary, invisible deity.

I've heard people say, "Love is in the air," as if they actually believe that love is mixed in with the oxygen molecules in the air. That's impossible. A human emotion cannot float around outside the body. Pollution is in the air. Moisture is in the air. Dust is in the air. Bacteria is in the air. But love is not in the air.

Unconditional love, or God as I call it, had to come first before all the conditional human facets of that “emotion” could also exist, including evil.

What evidence do you have for this?

Rick

[u-dog]

If there WERE a God, Rick. One who is infinite and eternal (that is to say one who holds the whole universe in the palm of his/her metaphorical hand and lives outside of Time ... what evidence would you EXPECT to see?:confused:

[Rick336]

If there WERE a God, Rick. One who is infinite and eternal (that is to say one who holds the whole universe in the palm of his/her metaphorical hand and lives outside of Time ... what evidence would you EXPECT to see?

Good question.

In the 55 years of my life here on earth, all the "evidence" I've ever had that God exists is that people have told me, "God exists." Or they point to a book that was written 20 centuries ago that they tell me God wrote, and use it as proof that God exists. Or they'll point to the ocean and say, "The ocean extists therefore God exists." Or they said, "We exists therefore God exists."

For 54 years I bought this as evidence that God existed. I basically believed that God existed simply because everybody else believed that God existed. Therefore, I thought, if everybody else believes it then it must be true.

So up until about a year ago I believed that God existed without ever questioning it. But then I started hanging around a fundamentalist buddy of mine who had some far-out beliefs about God. It made me start thinking about my own beliefs.

The first thing I did was read the Bible. I had read parts of the Bible before. But this time I wanted to read it all. What I found was a bunch of ridiculous nonsense. One was a story about a talking donkey. :lol: Seriously. A donkey that talks.

I don't believe a donkey or any animal can speak a human language. Stories about talking animals are absurd. Seriously. The donkey in "Shrek".....it's not a real donkey. It's a cartoon. The voice is Eddy Murphy's. It's not real. Ask any six year old.

I wouldn't want to live nextdoor to someone who believed animals can talk. Son of Sam believed his dog talked to him. That was just before he murdered a dozen people. Anybody who believes that animals can talk needs some serious and immediate psychotherapy.

If the Bible lies about talking animals then why should I believe it about anything else?

I started doing research on evidence that God actually existed. I found none. Zero. Zippo. Not one single speck of credible evidence that an invisible force exists somewhere out there beyond the clouds controlling everything.

The only thing that I found that God existed was that other people "believed" that God existed. People had "faith" that God existed. And faith is what people have when they have no evidence to back up what they believe. It's like having faith that there's gold at the end of a rainbow. Nobody has ever seen the gold, but does that mean it doesn't exists? YES!!

As far as evidence that God exists? I'd need to see him with my own eyes. I'd need to hear him. I'd need to see him do magic that can't be disproven through scientific research.

If there's a god....where is he? Why is he so mysterious?

The Bible says that God demands that we believe in him or we'll spend eternity in hellish torture. Eternity!! Not a week. Not a month. Not a year. Not even a hundred years. But eternity. Forever. Pain with no end.

God tells us in the Bible that animals can talk and that burning bushes and snakes give advice. Then he threatens us with eternal pain and agony if we don't believe in him. Then he hides from us.

Yet, he loves us.

Sure. That makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Rick

[Zerbie]

Good question.

So up until about a year ago I believed that God existed without ever questioning it. But then I started hanging around a fundamentalist buddy of mine who had some far-out beliefs about God. It made me start thinking about my own beliefs.

The first thing I did was read the Bible.
I started doing research on evidence that God actually existed. I found none. Zero. Zippo. Not one single speck of credible evidence that an invisible force exists somewhere out there beyond the clouds controlling everything.

The only thing that I found that God existed was that other people "believed" that God existed. People had "faith" that God existed. And faith is what people have when they have no evidence to back up what they believe. It's like having faith that there's gold at the end of a rainbow. Nobody has ever seen the gold, but does that mean it doesn't exists? YES!!

As far as evidence that God exists? I'd need to see him with my own eyes. I'd need to hear him. I'd need to see him do magic that can't be disproven through scientific research.

If there's a god....where is he? Why is he so mysterious?

The Bible says that God demands that we believe in him or we'll spend eternity in hellish torture. Eternity!! Not a week. Not a month. Not a year. Not even a hundred years. But eternity. Forever. Pain with no end.

God tells us in the Bible that animals can talk and that burning bushes and snakes give advice. Then he threatens us with eternal pain and agony if we don't believe in him. Then he hides from us.

Yet, he loves us.

Sure. That makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Rick

Yeah I've had trouble with this idea that all you have to do is read a book and you'll know. That's silly.

Rick - I love your post! It is WONDERFUL that you are thinking and asking questions and doing all this great stuff! I'm a questioning, searching phase myself right now.

Don't stop there. There is more. There is more than eye-level evidence of existence. I don't see the electrical wiring that runs from the wall-switch to the ceiling lamps, but when I flick the switch a light goes on, whether I see the wiring or no. Faith, for me, is like trusting the behind-the-scenes wiring when I flick the light switch.

All the real, true teachers (and they are rare in this world) tell us to look within. The real teachers will not ask us to just read a book and believe it. They demand that we do the work of thinking, praying, searching, using our intellect, and so on, to find what's really there or not there, for ourselves.

[u-dog]

Rick,

I like you a lot. Your contributions to this forum are always right on target and always helpful. I say this by way of saying that I don't have any desire to change you. I like you the way you are.

I also don't have any desire to debate with you about the existence of God in a way that we both end up backed out onto limbs that are unable to support our weight.

So having said that, I am going to throw out some questions and perspectives. They really are questions and not rhetorical devices.

1. The six year old would be correct to point out that Shrek (the story about talking donkeys) is fiction. Would he also be correct if he said that "Shrek the Movie lies about the verbal abilities of donkeys in general and Eddie Murphy's character in particular"? In other words is it accurate to say that "Shrek" is false? I would argue that it is not. Much in "Shrek" is true to my experience. For instance, it is true that not every one who LOOKS like an ogre actually IS an ogre. It is true that external beauty is not always an indicator of inner beauty, nor is external ugliness an indicator of inner ugliness. It is true to my experience that intolerant parents often can be brought to a place of acceptance. It is also true to my experience that a small group of faithful friends can overcome powerful and well organized evil. There is also much true about the story of Balaam's ass. The student newspaper at my seminary was called "Balaam's Ass" because it was always telling inconvenient truths that the administration didn't want to hear -- things that the editors believed God wanted them to hear. It is true to my experience that God finds ALL MANNER OF UNLIKELY WAYS to make his will known to me. So far no talking Donkeys but.... it ain't over til the fat lady sings so who knows!

2. The reason that I asked the question "What evidence would you expect to see?" Is that if you begin with the idea of an infinite and eternal God... you wouldn't EXPECT to see evidence WITHIN the framework of Space/Time of the existence of the eternal/infinite that couldn't be explained naturally in some way. If you could find evidence (foot prints, fingerprints, whatever) within space/time that would mean that God is inside and NOT eternal and infinite at all. Zeus, were he real, would leave footprints. YHWH would not. To say that God is eternal means more than just REALLY REALLY OLD. It means that God exists outside of time and experiences all the moments of time in one eternal now. For God, the moment of the Big bang and the present moment and the moment when the universe does whatever it is that the universe is going to do at the end, are all equally real and equally NOW to him/her. It would also mean that all of the infinite number of possible universes would be equally real to God. the one where I kill myself as a teen when I realize I'm gay, and this one where I marry a woman and have kids, and the one where I find a boyfriend and live happily ever after.) It would also mean that any "intervention" of God in the universe (multiverse?) would be present at the moment of the big bang.

3. Such a God cannot be deduced from evidence. if he/she COULD then it wouldn't be God at all. Such a God can only be known by SELF REVELATION and then only in part.

4. I am a Christian and believe that the Infinite and Eternal God DOES exist. I believe that he/she manifested him/herself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I believe this because many reliable witnesses (my grandmother, my folks, my brother, JS Bach, The Bible, BrentRichard, Dumas Otterson (a NASA scientist and my jr High Sunday School teacher) told me so. For 50 years I have lived "AS though it were true" that Jesus was the Son of God who gave his life willingly for all and was raised from the Dead in order to destroy the power of death. My experience confirms the reality of these claims... but doesn't "prove" it. This is how I understand "Faith" Faith=living as though certain things are true. The nature of the process is that each person must "live as though certain things are true" for themselves. In order to "know" that the water will hold you up... you have to jump in for yourself. That's why there is no "evidence". The truth of Christianity is not primarily propositional... its relational. You CAN'T know that God exists. You can ONLY know God.

5. here is a poem by the German Theologian, Dorothee Soelle who says this stuff better than I:

I don't, as they put it, believe in god
but to him i find I can't say no
hard as I try
take a look at him in the garden
when his friends ran out on him
his face wet with fear
and the spit of his enemies
him I have to believe

him I can't bear to abandon
to the great disregard for life
to the moronic rhythm of work leisure work
to the boredom we fail to dispel
in cars in beds in stores
that's how it is they say
uncertain and not uncritically
what do you want?
but I subscribe to the other hypothesis
which is his story

that's not how it is he said
for god is
and he staked his life on this claim
thinking about it I find
one can't let him pay alone
and so I believe him about god
the way one believes another's tears
or marriage or no for an answer
that's how you'll learn to believe him
about life promised to all.

[Zerbie]

R
2. 4. I am a Christian and believe that the Infinite and Eternal God DOES exist. I believe that he/she manifested him/herself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I believe this because many reliable witnesses (my grandmother, my folks, my brother, JS Bach, The Bible, told me so.

. You CAN'T know that God exists. You can ONLY know God.
all.

I just love that you said Bach told you God exists. :D

[u-dog]

I just love that you said Bach told you God exists. :D

The Magnificat is a pretty convincing argument... especially when you sing it! :sing: And its REALLY hard to listen to the Pasacaglia and fugue in D minor and not see God !:weee::good:

[Emproph]

And its REALLY hard to listen to the Pasacaglia and fugue in D minor and not see God !:weee::good:

...and sound waves travel through the air, one might even say that love is in the air...

[progressive4christ]

"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, then live my life as if there isn't, and find out there is"

[progressive4christ]

Do we have proof and reason why hate and love ever exist and why we use it. Why do humans feel it necessary to hate and love, so should it not exist?

[Zerbie]

The Magnificat is a pretty convincing argument... especially when you sing it! :sing: And its REALLY hard to listen to the Pasacaglia and fugue in D minor and not see God !:weee::good:

That's the first Bach I ever sang. :) Truly enjoyed it! The Quia Respexit remains one of my favorite pieces ever.

What part did you sing?

[u-dog]

That's the first Bach I ever sang. :) Truly enjoyed it! The Quia Respexit remains one of my favorite pieces ever.

What part did you sing?

Baritone. I sang it with the larger "town and gown" choir when I was in College. It was kind of a heavy/plodding performance. My son sang it last year with the smaller more select chorus and it just... DANCED. It was awesome!

[Rick336]

Quotes on faith and religion:

"Faith is corrosive to the human mind. If someone genuinely believes that it is right to believe things without reason or evidence then they are open to every kind of dogma, whim, coercion, or dangerous infectious idea that's around. If someone is convinced that it is acceptable to base their beliefs on what is written in an ancient book, or what some teacher tells them they must believe, then they will have no true freedom of thought; they will be trapped by their faith into inconsistency and untruths because they are unable to throw out false ideas when evidence against them comes along."
- Author Sue Blackmore


"Faith is believing what you know aint so." - Mark Twain

"You cannot convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan


"I have seldom met an intelligent person whose views were not narrowed and distorted by religion." - James Buchanan


"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - W.K. Clifford

"One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist." - Frances Crick


"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." - Richard Dawkins

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln

"Faith means the will to avoid knowing the truth." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire

"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." - Mark Twain

"The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors." - Sam Harris

"If devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking......The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind." - Ayn Rand


Rick

[progressive4christ]

why do Some atheist work so hard to make people not believe; is not that the same as those trying to make someone make you believe. if one spends more time trying to disprove God then he will not find God.

[BrentRichards]

1. The six year old would be correct to point out that Shrek (the story about talking donkeys) is fiction. Would he also be correct if he said that "Shrek the Movie lies about the verbal abilities of donkeys in general and Eddie Murphy's character in particular"? In other words is it accurate to say that "Shrek" is false? I would argue that it is not. Much in "Shrek" is true to my experience. For instance, it is true that not every one who LOOKS like an ogre actually IS an ogre. It is true that external beauty is not always an indicator of inner beauty, nor is external ugliness an indicator of inner ugliness. It is true to my experience that intolerant parents often can be brought to a place of acceptance. It is also true to my experience that a small group of faithful friends can overcome powerful and well organized evil. There is also much true about the story of Balaam's ass. The student newspaper at my seminary was called "Balaam's Ass" because it was always telling inconvenient truths that the administration didn't want to hear -- things that the editors believed God wanted them to hear. It is true to my experience that God finds ALL MANNER OF UNLIKELY WAYS to make his will known to me. So far no talking Donkeys but.... it ain't over til the fat lady sings so who knows!

Nicely said.


I believe this because many reliable witnesses (my grandmother, my folks, my brother, JS Bach, The Bible, BrentRichard, Dumas Otterson (a NASA scientist and my jr High Sunday School teacher) told me so.

How did I make this list? Wow.


5. here is a poem by the German Theologian, Dorothee Soelle who says this stuff better than I:

Oh, THAT Dorothee!

[Zerbie]

Quotes on faith and religion:

"Faith is corrosive to the human mind. If someone genuinely believes that it is right to believe things without reason or evidence then they are open to every kind of dogma, whim, coercion, or dangerous infectious idea that's around. If someone is convinced that it is acceptable to base their beliefs on what is written in an ancient book, or what some teacher tells them they must believe, then they will have no true freedom of thought; they will be trapped by their faith into inconsistency and untruths because they are unable to throw out false ideas when evidence against them comes along."
- Author Sue Blackmore


Absolutely so. That is not faith (as I use the word). That is blind belief. No basis. Utterly so as above. That is something we MUST move beyond, and thinking, learning, intellect, are all to be used for that purpose. That is what's so corrosive about blind belief.


"One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false.- Frances Crick

Oh yeah! BIG mistake. Big problem. Personally, I don't get it. Why do they feel they should believe such things? Science corroborates truth. And teaches us about it.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." - Richard Dawkins

The evidence is all around. It depends upon what eyes you look with. The problem is so many people run around with their eyes closed, crying out "faith, faith," and what they have is blind belief.

"Faith means the will to avoid knowing the truth." - Friedrich Nietzsche

It is, or SHOULD BE, the very opposite: the will to know the real truth, and have all deceptions fall away.

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire

THAT is a great one.

"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." - Mark Twain

All too true.

"The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors." - Sam Harris

MAGNIFICENT. The same is true of the rare, true spiritual teachers.

"If devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking....." - Ayn Rand

Excellent one.

Rick

We have to be responsible first. Responsible for what we think, what we feed our minds with, what we believe and on what basis. From there, we can learn.

[tpdncr4christ]

Scientifically speaking, I see God poking us everywhere... hiding in numbers and design, laughing at us as we search for answers. He is just :poke:ing us, smiling, waiting until we get it.

The Golden Ratio, PHI: the ratio found throughout nature of 1.618... It can be seen on your face, in your body, on a conch shell, on tree leaves, on Grecian statues, in architecture, everywhere. Check out Wikipedia's Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio) for a more relevant explanation. The Golden Ratio is, to me, like God's fingerprints. He didn't create us to mysteriously hide from us, He is all around and has left clues for us to find him.

I love it when people say science is against the church, to me, the search for knowledge, the constant questions that plague humanity's curiosity that is just more and more proof that God exists. I can't help but see God as reading the most complex thriller mystery book of all time, urging forward the protagonist through his trials of understanding, biting his lip when the dark ages set us back, crying with us when we use our minds and gifts to destroy each other, rejoicing for us with each break through, laughing at our ridiculous struggles and responses to hardship. He is, to me, very much evident. I can't prove to you that He is true. I can't show God to you. But I know He is here. And that's all I need.

[progressive4christ]

Scientifically speaking, I see God poking us everywhere... hiding in numbers and design, laughing at us as we search for answers. He is just :poke:ing us, smiling, waiting until we get it.

The Golden Ratio, PHI: the ratio found throughout nature of 1.618... It can be seen on your face, in your body, on a conch shell, on tree leaves, on Grecian statues, in architecture, everywhere. Check out Wikipedia's Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio) for a more relevant explanation. The Golden Ratio is, to me, like God's fingerprints. He didn't create us to mysteriously hide from us, He is all around and has left clues for us to find him.

I love it when people say science is against the church, to me, the search for knowledge, the constant questions that plague humanity's curiosity that is just more and more proof that God exists. I can't help but see God as reading the most complex thriller mystery book of all time, urging forward the protagonist through his trials of understanding, biting his lip when the dark ages set us back, crying with us when we use our minds and gifts to destroy each other, rejoicing for us with each break through, laughing at our ridiculous struggles and responses to hardship. He is, to me, very much evident. I can't prove to you that He is true. I can't show God to you. But I know He is here. And that's all I need.

Very well put.

[u-dog]

Quotes on faith and religion:

"Faith is corrosive to the human mind. If someone genuinely believes that it is right to believe things without reason or evidence then they are open to every kind of dogma, whim, coercion, or dangerous infectious idea that's around. If someone is convinced that it is acceptable to base their beliefs on what is written in an ancient book, or what some teacher tells them they must believe, then they will have no true freedom of thought; they will be trapped by their faith into inconsistency and untruths because they are unable to throw out false ideas when evidence against them comes along."
- Author Sue Blackmore


"Faith is believing what you know aint so." - Mark Twain

"You cannot convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan


"I have seldom met an intelligent person whose views were not narrowed and distorted by religion." - James Buchanan


"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - W.K. Clifford

"One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist." - Frances Crick


"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." - Richard Dawkins

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln

"Faith means the will to avoid knowing the truth." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire

"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." - Mark Twain

"The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors." - Sam Harris

"If devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking......The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind." - Ayn Rand


Rick


What would you like us to do with all of these varied reflections by well known skeptics and atheists, Rick? They feel to me like a slap down rather than part of a conversation, but that is unlike you so rather than be reactive and angry I guess I'll just be confused. :confused:

[Rick336]

I guess I'm not asking you to do anything with the quotes but read them. They're just different opinions from other non-believers besides myself.

I'm not here to prove that god doesn't exists. I'm only here to express my opinion. But maybe I shouldn't express my views about atheism in a Christian group. But the thread is called "Calling all atheists". So here I am.

Actually the term "atheists" is a Christian term. I prefer to be called a free thinker or a non-believer.

Chances are that you're a non-believer too. If you don't believe that Thor or Zuce or Allah or Apollo or Hercules or any other gods are true gods then you're also a non-believer. The only difference between you and me is that I just take it one step further and also don't believe in the Christian god.

I just don't see any evidence of an invisible god telling people what to do. Look at the Koran. In that book Allah instructs people of Islam to kill all infidels (non-believers of Allah). "As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God's judgement. They shall become fuel for fire. We will put terror in the hearts of the unbelievers." On September 11th, 2001 we learned how serious fundamentalists Muslims take their beliefs.

Look at what's going on in Iraq right now. The Shittes and Sunnis are blowing each other to bits. Why? Because their different religious beliefs told them to. That's insane! And all of them want to see Israel destroyed. The leader of Iran believes Allah is real but he doesn't believe that millions of Jews perished in the Holocaust. And this man wants to build nuclear weapons.

In the 21st century the technology to build weapons of mass destruction is becoming more widely available. The world needs to start seriously re-thinking all religion beliefs. "Where is this god who is telling us to kill each other?"

If the above quotes were offensive then I apologize. I didn't intend them to be. The reason I posted them was an alternative to a debate. I think there are actually some rational things that have come out of Christian scripture. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love one another." Those make sense. Unfortunately there's hundreds that don't make sense.

I don't think most Christians are stupid or hateful. My grandfather was a Southern Methodist minister. He was the most gentle and loving person I ever knew. But this is a different world than the one he lived in. In many ways it's a much better world. In other ways it's also more dangerous.

And it will become even more dangerous if we continue to believe the absurdities of ancient religious books. The survival of our civilization depends on rationality and reason.

Rick

[progressive4christ]

I hope you were not made to feel bad about your opinions and beliefs, but most people religious or not when passionate about something will be quick to defend or convince. Christianity is not exempt from that just like any other thing one is passionate about.

You are right; and responded correctly in the sense of "calling all Atheist"

I just wish some people would look at Jesus's life instead of some of His crazy followers.(nobody in this forum) Trust me they are all not crazy. I am sad that the Farwells, Robertson's and Phelps are what non-believers see. I am glad that you are here and will see even thoe we might differ on faith you are here among Christians who do care and weather you believe this are not are free thinkers-Liberal Christians. It is Christians, not God who has kept people from free thinking because mankind likes to control the masses; so they lie to the mass and they blindly follow because they think they are doing right. Hear a lie enough time some start to believe it. Some Christian for get the the word Christ is in the name of their faith; which to me means Christ like. I can not find any example of Christ behaving like some Christians do today. The ones in this forum seem to pretty level headed. I believe God has giving us reason and rationality it is some people have not found it yet or do not know how to use it in the context of their faith. To many Christians follow man instead of Christ. Man is fallible so there is room for lots of mistakes on all levels.

One way of proof that God is of free thinking is: you know when people say why does God allow such bad things to happen? Well, it is apart of free thinking and free will. People make bad decisions and yes the innocent to sometimes get hurt because of that ; which seems unfair i know,but that is what comes with free will and thinking. God does not stop you from doing anything; you yourself or others do. Separate God from man and you may just see him for your self, but that is YOUR choice. Not trying to be preachie, but letting know how I feel.

Peace love and goodness to all,
Pam

[Zerbie]

:love::love::love: (((( Rick ))))




I'm not here to prove that god doesn't exists. I'm only here to express my opinion. But maybe I shouldn't express my views about atheism in a Christian group.

Hey whoa! This is not a "Christian" group - it is a non-denominational social justice group based on spiritual principles and founded by a Christian, which therefore attracts a lot of Christian members. Not all of us are Christian. :poke: For instance, me.




But the thread is called "Calling all atheists". So here I am.

We're all here sharing opinions and philosophies. These are things that are or have been very personal and special for all of us, as yours are to you. I have immense respect for your position, Rick. After all, I'm an "ex-atheist," :p:D I must be the opposite of most people in America. I am far, FARRRRR more likely to trust an atheist than a "Christian." Those are my preconceptions which are based on actual experiences in the past.

I just take it one step further and also don't believe in the Christian god.

I don't find that offensive at all. I'm not sure what anyone means when they say "christian god," but I probably don't 'believe in' the one you mean, either. Can't speak for anyone else on this board about being offended or not, but I just can't see how an honest personal statement like that could possibly be taken as an offense.


Look at what's going on in Iraq right now. The Shittes and Sunnis are blowing each other to bits. Why? Because their different religious beliefs told them to. That's insane!

Yes it is. As have been so many "holy wars" throughout world history.

In the 21st century the technology to build weapons of mass destruction is becoming more widely available. The world needs to start seriously re-thinking all religion beliefs.

Yes. If we are not to self-destruct.

"Where is this god who is telling us to kill each other?"

In our own hearts and minds. In our selfish nature. Not in God. The problem is we see our own anger and judgment, etc., and then call it God.



If the above quotes were offensive then I apologize. I didn't intend them to be.

Not at all! I hope you still feel welcome to share with us. You have a lot of important things to say.
:love::love::love:



Rick

Here is a poem I wrote shortly after my 17th birthday:

Genesis

In the beginning
there was fear.

One day Man said
"Let there be faith,"

and Man created God
in his image.

[Rick336]

Genesis

In the beginning
there was fear.

One day Man said
"Let there be faith,"

and Man created God
in his image.

Zerbie. I believe this is exactly what happened.

Thousands of years after humans began walking upright, they began to think about stuff. They started wondering what was going on. Lightning, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, errupting volcanos frightened them. They needed answers. And since they didn't have science to give them answers, they simply made stuff up.

They figured since the sun and the moon and the stars looked down on them from above, then these heavenly bodies must be in control of everything. Floods, droughts, storms, volcano erruptions were punishments from above for something they must have done to anger the gods.

Fast forward 500 thousand years to September 2005.

Hundreds of entries on web blogs from Christians across America claimed that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment on New Orleans for being a wicked city.

We've been walking upright for a million years now. We communicate with one another with computers. We carry telephones in our pockets that take videos that we can send to emails. So the big question is....how long do we continue to hold on to these stone age religious beliefs?

Do we ask a donkey for the answer?

Rick

[Zerbie]

Zerbie. I believe this is exactly what happened.

Thousands of years after humans began walking upright, they began to think about stuff. They started wondering what was going on. Lightning, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, errupting volcanos frightened them. They needed answers. And since they didn't have science to give them answers, they simply made stuff up.

They figured since the sun and the moon and the stars looked down on them from above, then these heavenly bodies must be in control of everything. Floods, droughts, storms, volcano erruptions were punishments from above for something they must have done to anger the gods.

Fast forward 500 thousand years to September 2005.

Hundreds of entries on web blogs from Christians across America claimed that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment on New Orleans for being a wicked city.

We've been walking upright for a million years now. We communicate with one another with computers. We carry telephones in our pockets that take videos that we can send to emails. So the big question is....how long do we continue to hold on to these stone age religious beliefs?


Rick


Yep. Absolutely the same mindset at work. Technology has advanced, but the human mind/heart have not, at least not to a comparable degree. It needs to happen, or with all our cleverness and devices paired unevenly with the fear hate anger and so on, we may destroy ourselves and take how much of mother earth along with us?

My take is that science and Religion (real religion - the kind you rarely ever run into) are closer than sisters to one another. They both inquire into the nature of things as they really are, seeking to understand what is really going on and why, etc. The kind of religion one is more likely to run into, though, in this world, is a social behavior based on blind belief that, as you so correctly point out, runs counter to science, to common sense, to the (God-given) facility of reason itself. It's my belief that God gave us Reason for a reason, (ha:p) and that reason comprises knowing God. That science is one way (a very good way) of moving in that direction. That science and real Religion are two aspects of the same pursuit that can and must be used together to understand ourselves & our universe and better the world for our neighbors.

Religion must advance beyond, as you put it, the Stone Age. Rejecting science, and reason itself! - is the very opposite of what it ought to do. Being blind and deaf is only going to shut your awareness down to the presence of God, yet that is what some people consider being "religious."

Expand awareness. Who cares if it's through hard science, the social sciences like psychology, etc., prayer, or a practice like meditation? As long as we are growing and progressing, we can get where we need to get to solve our problems (which we'd better do before we self-destruct).

[Rick336]

Author Sam Harris puts it well in his book, "The End of Faith":

"Where we have reasons for what we believe we, we have no need for faith; where we have no reasons, we have lost our connection to the world and to one another. People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of power. The only thing we should respect in a person's faith is his desire for a better life in this world; we need never have respected his certainty that one awaits him in the next.

This world is simply ablaze with bad ideas. There are still places where people are put to death for imaginary crimes - like blasphemy - and where the totality of a child's education consists of his learning to recite from an ancient book of religious fiction.

There are countries where women are denied almost every human liberty, except the liberty to breed. And yet these same societies are quickly acquiring terrifying arsenals of advanced weaponry.

If we cannot inspire the developing world, and the Muslim world in particular, to pursue ends that are compatible to global civilization, then a dark future awaits us all.

The days of our religious identities are clearly numbered. Whether the days of civilization itself are numbered would seem to depend, rather too much, on how soon we realize this."

- Sam Harris 2005

[Rick336]

Good News

Ex-Muslims non-believers are coming out of the closet in Europe:

A British branch of a new Europe-wide phenomenon is to be launched on Thursday June 21, 2007 in London. The Council of ex-Muslims of Britain is building on the stunning success of other branches already operating in Germany, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The British Humanist Association and National Secular Society are sponsoring the launch and support the new organisation.

The Council will provide a voice for those labelled Muslim but who have renounced religion and do not want to be identified by religion.

Rights activist Maryam Namazie will be the voice of the organisation in this country. She said: “We are establishing the alternative to the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain because we don’t think people should be pigeonholed as Muslims or deemed to be represented by regressive organisations like the MCB. Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered 'apostates' - punishable by death in countries under Islamic law. By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism. We are quite certain we represent a majority in Europe and a vast secular and humanist protest movement in countries like Iran.”



Here is the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain's MANIFESTO:

We, non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims, are establishing or joining the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to insist that no one be pigeonholed as Muslims with culturally relative rights nor deemed to be represented by regressive Islamic organisations and 'Muslim community leaders'.

Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered 'apostates' - punishable by death in countries under Islamic law.

By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism.

Whilst religion or the lack thereof is a private affair, the increasing intervention of and devastation caused by religion and particularly Islam in contemporary society has necessitated our public renunciation and declaration. We represent a majority in Europe and a vast secular and humanist protest movement in countries like Iran.

Taking the lead from the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany, we demand:

1. Universal rights and equal citizenship for all. We are opposed to cultural relativism and the tolerance of inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture.

2. Freedom to criticise religion. Prohibition of restrictions on unconditional freedom of criticism and expression using so-called religious 'sanctities'.

3. Freedom of religion and atheism.

4. Separation of religion from the state and legal and educational system.

5. Prohibition of religious customs, rules, ceremonies or activities that are incompatible with or infringe people's rights and freedoms.

6. Abolition of all restrictive and repressive cultural and religious customs which hinder and contradict woman's independence, free will and equality. Prohibition of segregation of sexes.

7. Prohibition of interference by any authority, family members or relatives, or official authorities in the private lives of women and men and their personal, emotional and sexual relationships and sexuality.

8. Protection of children from manipulation and abuse by religion and religious institutions.

9. Prohibition of any kind of financial, material or moral support by the state or state institutions to religion and religious activities and institutions.

10. Prohibition of all forms of religious intimidation and threats.

[BrentRichards]

:love::love::love: (((( Rick ))))




Here is a poem I wrote shortly after my 17th birthday:

Genesis

In the beginning
there was fear.

One day Man said
"Let there be faith,"

and Man created God
in his image.


There is an old saying in some Christian circles ... "On the 6th day, God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to return the favor ever since." We do a lot of this ... it should not be surprising that we'd rather have a God of our own design (a tame lion, to steal from C.S. Lewis) than one with traits that challenge, confuse, and sometimes frighten us.

Nonetheless, the fact that we do this doesn't imply that there isn't a real God above all our inventions. In fact, some argue that our apparently insatiable God-drive suggests that knowledge of God (at some level) is "hardwired" into us ... be it physically or spiritually. I don't find that a compelling argument, but it is intriguing nonetheless. Pascal called this the "God-shaped vacuum" in each of us, which he said could be filled by no created thing, but only by the Creator himself.

I heartily concur with progressive... don't hold Jesus responsible for some of the jerks who believe in Him.

Rick, your observation is correct that "atheist" only has meaning with respect to a particular religious faith. The Romans called early Christians atheists, because they rejected all but one God ... how dare they? I'm sure you've been bashed and degraded by a lot of my fellow Christians over the years, and I'm sorry for that. I know I used to have (in my early years) this image of atheists that they must be nasty, evil people ... because I didn't know anyone who was an atheist (not unlike people who make assumptions about us GLBT folk because they don't know any of us). I know now that an atheist is a person just like me who believes something not just like my beliefs. Ok, so? I can deal with that!

I would ask you, politely, to be careful about how you characterize our Christian faith, regardless of whether you can personally accept any of it. I certainly don't think I'm "stone age." As to the many "unbelievable" things in the Bible, well ... either they're figurative stories told to make a point (as U-Dog has already alluded to), or they're assertions of God's miraculous power ... a miracle, by definition, is impossible under natural law ... if it weren't, we wouldn't be very impressed by it ... behold, I have made this tree fall using only this axe ... yeah, so? Thinking God could, to use your favorite example, speak through a donkey, if He so chose, doesn't make me a fool. I've seen some pretty big jackasses used for His purposes! (In which category I have to include myself, if I'm honest.)

Richard Dawkins (tangent here, I'm just thinking of this because he's mentioned/quoted above) is a perfect example, to me, of an obnoxious brand of atheism no better than judgemental fundamentalism ... not content to disagree, and choose not to believe in a religion himself, he feels the need to belittle, ridicule, and otherwise slam all religions and religious people... we are, in his loud voice, the cause of most if not all societal ills, in addition to being brainwashed morons. Frankly, though I'd never get involved in a debate with him on, say, paleontology (in which he is admittedly expert), I frankly have no interest at all in his pseudo-theological/philosophical pronouncements ... he has no more "clout" to pronounce about that than any random person off the street.

Rant over. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Zerbie]

Thanks Brent for a lovely and well-stated post.

Rick, I kinda feel like with all the quotes you are talking past us, not really *with* us. We're all going to have a somewhat different concept of what is holy, but what we SF members agree upon, whether atheist, buddhist, christian, pagan or whatever else, is that the human heart is something to be cherished, and that the mind is a great tool for good or for ill. I would not characterize ANY of the forum members (regulars anyway) here as being "stone age," as Brent said, for being christian. Not all christians adhere to beliefs that stubbornly conflict with science and the entire observable world. Hardly. As I have been learning.

Now I'm stepping into territory where, admittedly, I have no special expertize but as far as the Bible goes (and I admit I've read extremely little of it,) most of what I've seen has tremendous spiritual significance if we perceive it as allegorical. If you perceive it as literal, you are bound to see only the physical, worldly things and completely miss the point. Christ was showing the path to the spiritual.

Wow. I can't believe I just defended christianity. :eek: My high school classmates would die of shock.

Haha.:p It's only in recent weeks that I even learned that many people hold a dim and distorted view of atheists. I always held atheists in far higher regard than religious people. Part of the reason I was one. But talking to respectful, intellectual members of both categories, ya'll sound very similar to each other to my ears.

[Rick336]

Not all christians adhere to beliefs that stubbornly conflict with science and the entire observable world.

Yes they do. Christianity is a belief that a man died and then three days later got up and walked around. That conflicts with science.

I'm saying that all religion conflicts with science. Religions are based on child-like stories. I say "child-like" because that's exactly what they are. Talking animals and magic wands and ghosts flying through the air. How is that any different from reindeer flying through the air?

It's not!.

In the Bible there's a talking donkey.
In "Little Red Ridinghood" there's a talking wolf.

Muhammad flys to heaven on a winged horse.
Mary Poppins flys to London with an umbrella.

Joseph Smith owned a pair of magical glasses.
Dorothy owned a pair of magical slippers.

We have a man right now who is running for the office for the President of the United States. He's a Mormon. The Mormon religion is based on a book that says Joseph Smith found a pair of magical glasses with lens made of diamonds that he used to read unknown scripture written on golden leaves.

Magical glasses?

I think we have a right to ask a presidential candidate this question. "Do you believe in magical glasses?" If he's a true Mormon, his answer would have to be yes.

So the question would be; do we elect a man for the office of the most powerful country on earth who believes in magical glasses?

My Christian fundamentalist buddy believes that someday soon Jesus will fly down to earth on a silver cloud and all the dead Christians will rise from their graves and fly up to meet him in the sky.

:rolleyes:

Flying zombies?
Talking donkeys?
Magical glasses?

Even a caveman would say, "That's just silly!" :lol:


Rick

[u-dog]

Yes they do. Christianity is a belief that a man died and then three days later got up and walked around. That conflicts with science.

I'm saying that all religion conflicts with science. Religions are based on child-like stories. I say "child-like" because that's exactly what they are. Talking animals and magic wands and ghosts flying through the air. How is that any different from reindeer flying through the air?

It's not!.

In the Bible there's a talking donkey.
In "Little Red Ridinghood" there's a talking wolf.

Muhammad flys to heaven on a winged horse.
Mary Poppins flys to London with an umbrella.

Joseph Smith owned a pair of magical glasses.
Dorothy owned a pair of magical slippers.

We have a man right now who is running for the office for the President of the United States. He's a Mormon. The Mormon religion is based on a book that says Joseph Smith found a pair of magical glasses with lens made of diamonds that he used to read unknown scripture written on golden leaves.

Magical glasses?

I think we have a right to ask a presidential candidate this question. "Do you believe in magical glasses?" If he's a true Mormon, his answer would have to be yes.

So the question would be; do we elect a man for the office of the most powerful country on earth who believes in magical glasses?

My Christian fundamentalist buddy believes that someday soon Jesus will fly down to earth on a silver cloud and all the dead Christians will rise from their graves and fly up to meet him in the sky.

:rolleyes:

Flying zombies?
Talking donkeys?
Magical glasses?

Even a caveman would say, "That's just silly!" :lol:


Rick


Rick,

You need to stop and take a deep breath. This is a diverse group of people who hold a diverse set of beliefs about the world and how it works. One of the unwritten (at least I think its unwritten) rules of this community s that we treat each others beliefs with respect even when we don't understand or share them.

You have broken this very basic rule of civility and have moved from articulating a philosophical point of view and sharing your own beliefs to a place of ridiculing others beliefs and name calling.

If you want to point to something and call it CHILDISH? That would be a good place to start.

None of us on this forum deserve to be spoken to by you in the way that you have been speaking. You have trouble believing in talking jackasses? Look in the mirror. Plenty of scientific evidence there. If you'd like to apologize to your friends on this forum for your behavior, I'm sure they'd love to forgive you.

Dave

[Rick336]

Dave,

Your post to me shows that you're very upset by what I've said. You called me a "jackass" and said that I was being "childish."

I never called anyone in this group a jackass. In fact, an earlier post I said that I don't believe that Christians are stupid. And I still don't.

But I do, however, believe most religious beliefs are irrational. And I stand by that belief and will not apologize for it. But saying that I think the beliefs are irrational is not the same as saying that people who believe them are stupid.

What I hear you saying is that I have been very insensitive to you and to others. And you probably have a point. Sometimes when I'm trying to express myself I don't immediately realize that what I'm saying will make others upset.

I'm not in the habit of trying to make people feel bad. That's just not me. At least, I hope not. I see myself as somebody who doesn't intentionally hurt somebody's else's feelings. But I am fallible and may do it unintentionally.

I really like the people in this group. I respect their opinions and enjoy reading their points of view and sense of humor. My statements above were not posted to poke fun at anyone here. I was only trying to make a point with a little bit of humor. I can see now that maybe I went too far. I was wrong to do that.

Dave, and to those who were offended, I apologize. Your opinions and beliefs are just as valid to you as I feel mine are to me.

Maybe for now I will avoid discussions about religion in this fourm and stick to LGBT issues only. I think most of us can more easily agree with one another in that area of discussion.

Peace. :)

Rick

[u-dog]

Rick,

Thanks for your post. That feels much better to me and I appreciate your willingness to think about what I said.

Dave

[Zerbie]

Well I for one find this an interesting conversation & am open to its continuation - Rick if ya wanna discuss any of this via PM, go ahead, shoot me a note. But I am on vacation & find it really hard to get even 2 minutes to concentrate - as in right now hubby is 6 inches away shuffling suitcases & bumping the chair, and we're having a conversation, so my point is it might be a while before I can give any responses the kind of focus they deserve.

With regard to the not all religious beliefs are contrary to science statement, bear in mind you're talking to a yoga student who trained with an instructor who was a career research scientist. I view metaphysics and physics as simply lying on different places of the self-same spectrum.

I don't feel offended, but I did feel that you were disengaged from our conversation. If you want to plug back in and take this up again, shoot me a PM and I'll reply when I get a chance to sit & type quietly.

[Rick336]

Thanks for your post. That feels much better to me and I appreciate your willingness to think about what I said.

Dave,

You're welcome. And I will take this as an apology for the "jackass" remark. :)

Rick

[u-dog]

Dave,

You're welcome. And I will take this as an apology for the "jackass" remark. :)

Rick


Done! acceptance of implied apology accepted.;)

[Emproph]

Given the expressed contention here that love is just like any other emotion, I’ve been trying to figure out a way to explain the superior nature of love in this regard.

If unconditional love can be known to be true, ultimately, the logic of its existence can only result in one answer. And to see that truth, is to see God.

To me, God is synonymous with truth.

These two posts in particular have been resonating in my mind's eye since their inception. I've been through this "argument" many times before, even once with a pastor, but I think I may have something this time. And I’m just talking plain truth and logic here, not out to prove the “God” part this time.

Love is an emotion like hate, fear, jealousy, embarrassment, saddness, and joy. It is a result of human brain activity. It is not a thing that exist outside the human body. You may see human behavior motivated by love but love itself is just an emotion produced by the brain. To say "only love can make love" makes no sense. It would be the same as saying that only embarrassment can make embarrassment or only jealousy can make jealousy.

Rick
Also:
here is Emorphs statement, but the words changed to show a different emotion, but just as powerful of an emotion. See how it changes the thinking of this thread:

Emorph wrote (with my changes):

They may have `believed' in the god - as in their own egos, but they certainly weren't worshiping any god of anger. I need to start using the word anger instead of the word God, to avoid the religious/dogma bull, so that at least my intention is understood.

The intention changes as the emotion changes. What Emorph isn't seeing is that Love is just an emotion, so is anger, greed, lust, joy and happiness. When you play with the words, things change. I hope you view changes as well as it is pretty offensive to those of us who do not believe in a god.

I remind everyone, if you want respect for your beliefs, then you must give that respect to others beliefs. I think Emorphs comments were sincerely curiosity, but nontheless we must respect that love is an emotion.

if you want to substitute a word for "god" then try "truth".
~~

The point I think I can explain now, is that love is the most powerful emotion, and is superior to, and responsible for all other emotions.

Excerpts from above:
Love is an emotion like hate, fear, jealousy, embarrassment, saddness, and joy.

The intention changes as the emotion changes. What Emorph isn't seeing is that Love is just an emotion, so is anger, greed, lust, joy and happiness.
Also:
Violence, anger, and hatred all traced back to fear.
I’ve been mulling on this for the past while, and this is what I’m getting. That all the negative emotions like anger and jealousy, all come down to the feeling of ‘not enough love.’ What Vortex accurately describes as being "traced back to fear."

A Course in Miracles calls it “a call for love.” Reducing everything to either love, or a call for love. If good emotions equal love, and bad emotions equal fear, then this sentiment is sincere and accurate.

Negative emotions are all variations of the fear of not having enough love. And when I say love, I’m trying to use that term as unconditionally as possible.

I may not be aware that I "love" my peace of mind, but take it away and the emotion of anger shows me just how much I do. The point being, all negative emotions are experienced in direct relation to the perception of the lack of love.

I am equating good with love here. I am contending that what we define as good, is synonymous with what we define as love.

All emotions that are not good emotions, are the express response, in direct proportion, to the experience of the ABSENCE of good emotions (love).

All emotions are either good, or in response to the absence of good.

Thus, all emotions are either love, or in response to the absence of love.

Ultimately there is only one emotion, love (good), and somehow, love needs to exist before there can be a need for it.

I’m open to challenge, but does that much constitute as “truth” as far as distinguishing the principle of love as being necessary before “other” emotions, and thus superior to them?

[paul]

Hi all,
I see this discussion has been going on for some time and I hope it's okay to jump in the middle. I confess up front that I haven't yet read the whole thread, just the last three entries. Yell at me if I really must because all this has been said by someone else already, and rebuke my laziness. I will read it. If I have failed to pick up the gist, please tell me.
Up front I am an infidel (of sorts) who has respect for some of the bible. So a friendly heads up, not all stereotypes will apply to my 'unbelief.' As you'll see, I can think as a Christian might.

I think there is a problem with trying to fit love into the sole category of emotion. The English language has one word for love. The Greeks came up with three words that we translate (from the bible) into English as "love," but they all are different. The Greeks broke "love" into three categories, the physical expression: eros, friendship: phileo, and then there is agape.

I think it can be easily argued that the first two types of love have a basis in emotion, I'm not so sure about agape.

I assume most here are familiar with I Corinthians 13 where the apostle Paul defines agape "love." What stands out to me about Paul's definition/description of agape is that it is unselfish. Taking that to the farthest degree, in a Christian context, agape has it's source not in emotion (self), but God. Can the self be unselfish? I think this idea is borne out in I John where it says "we love because he first loved us." As a Christian I interpreted that verse thusly: "we have the ability to love because God first loved us." Paul couples love together with faith and hope as being the most important things for a believer since knowledge is in part. It can easily be established, in a biblical context that faith is a "gift from God," and I'm pretty confident I could find scripture to do the same with hope.

Leaping forward it seems to me that, in Christian theory, a Christian has a bases for living in three gifts from God (i.e., none of these are derived from the self, ego, emotion): "faith, hope and love (agape), but the greatest of these is love." Emproph, since I don't consider agape an emotion (not that there are not emotions associated with agape, just that emotion is not the source of agape, "God" is), I would not say that "love is the superior emotion" but that it is the "superior" ("greatest") of three gifts from God.

quote:
"I’ve been mulling on this for the past while, and this is what I’m getting. That all the negative emotions like anger and jealousy, all come down to the feeling of ‘not enough love.’ What Vortex accurately describes as being "traced back to fear."

Emproph and Vortex,
Regarding "fear,". I John says (sorry I'm not more specific, quoting from memory): "fear has punishment...perfect love casts out all fear." This, I think at least as regards fear, goes along with your thought Emproph that fear "come[s] down to the feeling of 'not enough love.'" That is to say, if love is perfect (complete) fear is "cast out." On further thought, jumping back to I Corinthians 13. If love is "patient, kind, not easily angered, takes no thought for itself, keeps no record of wrongs...," it's easy to extrapolate that if love were indeed "perfect" that there would not be a place left for "emotions like anger and jealousy."

I've got a lot of thoughts about this, this was a favorite subject of mine (i.e., faith, hope and love) for a long time. Am I anywhere in the ballpark of this discussion or am I in outer space?

[Zerbie]

Oh, I have no idea where I'm about to go with this. . . .

Love is more than an emotion, because as has been observed it can be a (loving) behavior in the absence of feeling love.

Also, love appears to have a basis in the brain. Perhaps the unconditional love response can be biologically hard-wired by wiring the brain to bypass the survival-based emotions (fear and anger) in the amygdala, if the neurons in the brain are connected to "higher" brain centers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43006-2005Jan2.html

[paul]

Zerbie,

You might enjoy this. It appears "God" might have a basis in the brain as well. ;)

This Is Your Brain on God Michael Persinger has a vision - the Almighty isn't dead, he's an energy field. And your mind is an electromagnetic map to your soul.

www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html?pg=1
&topic=&topic_set= ·

"Love is more than an emotion, because as has been observed it can be a (loving) behavior in the absence of feeling love."

I have to agree. I've been wandering back over the other entries of this thread, and read Emproph's original opening and spotted this among other stuff:

"So, only sense can create or ‘make’ sense. Simply speaking, things-always-come-from-somewhere.

Except for "God" apparently. Where did "God" come from? Simply speaking, this doesn't make sense.

[Emproph]

Oh, I have no idea where I'm about to go with this. . . .

Love is more than an emotion, because as has been observed it can be a (loving) behavior in the absence of feeling love.

Also, love appears to have a basis in the brain. Perhaps the unconditional love response can be biologically hard-wired by wiring the brain to bypass the survival-based emotions (fear and anger) in the amygdala, if the neurons in the brain are connected to "higher" brain centers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43006-2005Jan2.html




Brain research is beginning to produce concrete evidence for something that Buddhist practitioners of meditation have maintained for centuries: Mental discipline and meditative practice can change the workings of the brain and allow people to achieve different levels of awareness.

Here's one I found in regard to the "God experience" being the result of brain activity from someone who's nontheistic. My only complaint is that it seems to be presented in the "absence of evidence IS evidence of absence" genre. It's a good effort though.

I can accept the 'nonvisual evidence of a god' complaint, but to truly defend that position, wouldn't one have to at least accept the possibility of a consciousness that's incomprehensible?

http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm

But, if we truly are all one (God) , then it is all in your mind.

We just happen to be part of a very, very, very complex thought...

[Emproph]

Emproph and Vortex,
Regarding "fear,". I John says (sorry I'm not more specific, quoting from memory): "fear has punishment...perfect love casts out all fear." This, I think at least as regards fear, goes along with your thought Emproph that fear "come[s] down to the feeling of 'not enough love.'" That is to say, if love is perfect (complete) fear is "cast out." On further thought, jumping back to I Corinthians 13. If love is "patient, kind, not easily angered, takes no thought for itself, keeps no record of wrongs...," it's easy to extrapolate that if love were indeed "perfect" that there would not be a place left for "emotions like anger and jealousy."

I've got a lot of thoughts about this, this was a favorite subject of mine (i.e., faith, hope and love) for a long time. Am I anywhere in the ballpark of this discussion or am I in outer space?

That gets to the heart of it. The portion in bold encapsulates exactly what I was trying to say.

"So, only sense can create or `make' sense. Simply speaking, things-always-come-from-somewhere.

Except for "God" apparently. Where did "God" come from? Simply speaking, this doesn't make sense.
Ok Mr. Philosopher...

The implications of that get way too deep for this post. I’ve got a mountain of half-written essay carcass’ on this subject, thanks for bringing it back up though.


But a couple thoughts...

It doesn’t make sense, and that’s possibly the ultimate conundrum. Who created “God?”

This is precisely where the rational aspect of my philosophical thoughts end.

If God is infinite and eternal, how could God ever be truly FULLY aware of itself?

The nature of the awareness of infinity itself is a state of perpetual increasing.