Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Atheism May Be the Best Way to Understand God

By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet. Posted December 19, 2008.


Only a lack of belief in God offers the possibility of increasing our understanding of him or her.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Larry Beinhart

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor’s note: Religion is among the most volatile and divisive issues in the world today. Yet there’s little serious investigation into why people believe, or why some will kill and die for their faith. Larry Beinhart, in his new novel, Salvation Boulevard -- and this series of articles -- is hoping to start a conversation about these issues. This is the second in the series, the introduction can be read here.

*****

Religion -- at least on the face of things -- is the primary source of violent conflict in the world today. It is also the point of division in much of the world's politics.

Obviously, there have been conflicts over ideology, class, race, between tribes and nations, for territory, property and plunder. However, at the moment, religion leads the pack. At least as a way to rally the troops.

It is, therefore, important to understand what religion is and why it is so vital.

As a rough, utilitarian generalization, there are four classes of religion: nontheistic, deism, polytheism and monotheism.

Nontheistic religions include some forms of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto, animism, Wicca and the like.

They have ethical systems, support social and family networks, have spiritual practices, but do not claim, for the most part, divine revelations -- instructions from external entities who watch to see if they are carried out.

Classical deism believes in God, the Button Pusher, aka, the First Cause. He pushed the universe's "Go" button, then walked off, never to be heard from again.

Nowadays, it is common to hear things like "God is Energy," or the Universe, or Love, or That Which Quarks Come From (heard that one last night, with great conviction and certainty).

Such gods are essentially meaningless, at least in the moral and political sense. They do not, and in most cases cannot, dictate their memoirs, instructions and judgments to people. Whatever their concerns might be, they can go on their merry way without us.

Polytheism was the dominant religious form until the invention of monotheism with conversion, proselytizing and forced conversion. Although certain forms of nontheistic religions blend over into polytheism, and elements of polytheism can be found in some monotheistic sects, the last, remaining, significant polytheistic religion is Hinduism. Although it's different theologically, the political nature of Hinduism is similar to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the big three in monotheism.

The monotheistic religions claim there is one God. He has revealed himself to prophets, who spoke his words to various other people who wrote them down, perfectly, and that is the ultimate guide to how we should live our lives.

This a God who created us, cares about us, watches, communicates, interferes, cares, judges, rewards and punishes.

Therefore, to understand these religions, we have to ask about God.

Looking at God -- the Positions

We are speaking primarily of a meaningful, monotheistic, beneficent God. One who is aware of and cares about human beings, transmits messages to us, is capable of interfering with human existence and does so.

There are three basic positions from which to view God:

  • Belief (the Missionary Position)
  • Agnosticism (a No-Position Position)
  • Atheism (Downward-Facing Dog)

Each position forces certain questions and does not permit others.

Belief

If we start with belief, this is the root question: Why won't God make himself clear?

I'm a writer. If I had divine powers, believe me, I would get it right the first time and never need a rewrite. So why is there an Old Testament and then a New? Why is there the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib, Zhuan Falun, the Avesta, the Tattvartha Sutra?

As a writer, I worship clarity. If I need someone else to explain what I've written, I consider that a failure of the first order. God should surely do better. So why do the sacred texts of all religions always require someone to explain what they mean?

It is possible -- indeed, quite logical -- to say: "God is perfect, God gets it right every time. But, after all, he's talking to people, and you know how they screw things up. How often have you ordered a double cheeseburger with onions rings and ended up with fries? Human error, pilot error, mistakes happen."

Actually, that's a pretty good solution. If everyone said, "Yeah, we know God did his best, but look at what he had to work with, so my bible is just sort of an approximation, and yours must be, too, so let's not fight over it," then this would be an academic discussion, not worth writing or reading.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: religion, salvation boulevard

Larry Beinhart is the author of Wag the Dog, The Librarian, and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin. His latest book is Salvation Boulevard. Responses can be sent to beinhart@earthlink.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Belief in unbelief?
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 19, 2008 12:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope it is ok to agree with the conclusion and reject, wholeheartedly, the preceding. As we are in an age that is widely identified by leading scholars of religion as an age of the death or the absence of god, we need to talk about something other than whether god exists. Incidentally, to say “God exists” is redundant. It says no more than God is God. Kant taught us long ago that “existence” is not a predicate.

So you are right that meaningful discussion begins with “unbelief” understood as recognition that much, if not most, of what we have been taught in our Western civilization about religion has been shown to be bogus. The question that remains then is, can we find a significant question that is not bogus?

The best answer I know to that we need to overcome metaphysics, where that is identified with the notion of two worlds, one that we live in and another totally different kind of world somewhere else. The latter world, that other one, comes in many different forms.

There were lots of reasons for believing in that ‘immaterial’ world, and in fact the issue of the immaterial still requires clarification. I am convinced that it is our need for sleep and dreaming that leads us to think in terms of two worlds. While dreams can be a source of self-understanding and insight, they lead to superstition when interpreted in terms of a divine entity.

And that’s religion’s real enemy—superstition. I am willing to listen appreciatively to all discourses about god that do not promote superstition. I do find some: Emanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, Martin Heidegger, Paul Ricoeur to mention a few. All of us remain captives of metaphysics, so coherent conversation is problematic. I agree it is worth the effort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Belief in unbelief? Posted by: pcushniesr
» RE: Belief in unbelief? Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Belief in unbelief? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Belief in unbelief? Posted by: bluepilgrim
» the religious edge Posted by: masthead
» believing in not-believing Posted by: Ripcord
» anthro to be sure Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: Belief in unbelief? Posted by: eyejam
» YOUR MADE UP GOD Posted by: mindtrvlr
To Each Their Own
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 19, 2008 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there is/are a god(s), I haven't met them, seen them, or known their works. The world, as it is, speaks not of a deity that is interested in justice, peace or equity- quite the opposite. Instead of crediting this to a devil, maybe we can credit it to selfish, greedy and hateful people.

The numbers (and words & deeds) just do not add up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: To Each Their Own Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: To Each Their Own Posted by: naryaquid
» RE: To Each Their Own Posted by: aussidawg
» At A Price Posted by: NoPCZone
I read most of it
Posted by: bluepilgrim on Dec 19, 2008 1:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but I couldn't finish quite all of it -- like the overladen plate at the all-you-can-eat imitation-Chinese buffet. When you can feel yourself beginning to rumble and upchuck, then you have to stop.

As Pauli might say, this isn't even wrong (although there is a fair part of it which clearly is wrong). You are framing the arguments wrongly and asking inappropriate questions -- leading to meaningless answers without even any clear definitions. This is just lousy theology. No, there are not three doors -- there is a forest with any number of pathways in and out, and if you want someone to follow a path you are carving out then it better be very well cleared and blazed.

You say there is only one door (unbelief) "that offers the possibility of increasing our understanding of God". That's as dogmatic as the one and only true belief as from any fundamentalist -- and even assumes that "God" not only exists, but that it is a meaningful term, and that expressing God in terms of existence or non-existence means anything (it doesn't). It also assumes that understanding is even possible: check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism , for instance.

You can't get there starting from where you are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I read most of it Posted by: everton9
» Let me get this straight... Posted by: Smackback
» RE: Let me get this straight... Posted by: bluepilgrim
Atheism Fail
Posted by: HelperMonkey on Dec 19, 2008 2:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think you got the wrong end of the stick as far as atheism goes. I'm an atheist, which means I believe in the existence of a god who listens to all of our thoughts and divinely intervenes in our lives just as much as I do the flying spaghetti monster - scientifically I will rule neither of them out, but without any proof I find the efforts to construct a reality from them futile and ridiculous.

So I want to answer a couple of your questions, questions which highlight what I think are a basic misunderstanding of the lack of faith:

* If God doesn't exist, why do so many people believe in him?
Good question, not sure what it has to do with the existence of a god though. Perhaps we're genetically inclined to religion? Dawkins put forth one possible genetic explanation - that religion is a hangover from our innate need as children to believe what our parents tell us, lest we put our hand in fire or jump from a great height. I would think that the existence of a supreme being who listens to all our thoughts would be one of the last avenues of research to follow when attempting to explain humans' predisposition toward religion.

* If God doesn't exist, why are spiritual practices and religion among the human universals, things that exist in all human societies?
See above - a genetic inclination toward religion would explain this.

* If atheism is the The Truth, why isn't accepting the truth more helpful? If belief is a Lie, why isn't the lie more harmful?
I will answer with another question - what does our derived happiness from belief have to do with the truth behind that belief? Absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned. If desire for a truth had any impact on actual truth then I'd be 6 feet tall and I'd shoot flames out of my ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Atheism Fail Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: the genetic aspect Posted by: Lauren
» RE: the genetic aspect Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: the genetic aspect Posted by: Lauren
» RE: the genetic aspect Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Syncronicity Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Syncronicity Posted by: kungfuma
» RE: the genetic aspect Posted by: HelperMonkey
» RE: the genetic aspect Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» RE: the genetic aspect Posted by: Lauren
» RE: the genetic aspect Posted by: jroth420
» RE: the genetic aspect Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» Yup Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Yup Posted by: aussidawg
» Bah, Humbug Posted by: Fog
» RE: Bah, Humbug Posted by: jennymac
Comments
Posted by: pelican beak on Dec 19, 2008 2:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My sense is that one's religion describes the premises for the story one sees themselves enacting. It answers their questions, "Who do I think I am?" and "What do I think I'm doing here?" And thus provides a motive to animate their behavior. Whatever serves that purpose - that's their religion.

The central part of the article above, about atheism, presumes that one who embraces Truth should somehow enjoy better-off circumstances in their life. That doesn't follow. It may happen that embracing a false feel-good fairy-tale story will help one be happier in their life. I believe people generally will accept as Truth a story that makes them feel good. But that is no signal of its Truth. It is a signal about the believer - they're foremost looking out for #1, themself.

Might the God of the Bible actually be the God of Life's Destruction, posing as the God Who Created Life, so that we would eventually destroy ourselves and life On Earth? Certainly, that Posing God would tell us what we crave to hear, and we'd receive it as "Good News."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well said Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Well said Posted by: bubbleburster04
All Sorts of Problems
Posted by: sheherazahde on Dec 19, 2008 2:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just to start: Shintoism and Wicca (like Hinduism) are Polytheistic not Nontheistic.

I think you needed to narrow down your thesis for this article. You tried to say too many things and got very muddled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All Sorts of Problems Posted by: Lauren
» About atheists Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: About atheists Posted by: Lauren
» RE: About atheists Posted by: pelican beak
» atheists do not exist Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: atheists do not exist Posted by: pelican beak
» About anti-science proponents Posted by: suprmark
» RE: All Sorts of Problems Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» RE: All Sorts of Problems Posted by: jroth420
a limited argument
Posted by: chloelin on Dec 19, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atheists do end to pick the ground that suits what they want to say. It's reasonable to refuse to believe in an old man up in the sky who made everything with his tool-kit and writes down your bad deeds in a little black book. It seems that large numbers of people in the USA believe in just such an immature god. Atheists tend to argue with Christianity at the back of their mind and miss how far in advance of the usual Christian idea of God is Allah. They seldom look at the deeper Hindu idea of Brahman, much less the Void of Buddhism. It is unreasonable and grossly unscientific to allege that there cannot be any kind of a God whatsoever, because we've never seen "him". Such atheists clearly don't believe in evolution - a continuous process that has not ended with humanity. There will be other beings on this planet - if we don't spoil it - and they will sense and comprehend things as far in advance of our perception as we are in advance of the perception of a butterfly.
How can you say there cannot be an eternal, cannot be a creative principle, cannot be a ? - but we're only butterflies in such matters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a limited argument Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: a limited argument II Posted by: EinMD
» RE: a limited argument Posted by: EinMD
atheism-not!
Posted by: chance garden on Dec 19, 2008 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hello friend,

1. A-theism, is largely discredited in my mind for largely the same reason as theism is, it is illogical. One can neither prove nor disprove atheism nor theism. If we have only speculation or opinion to rely upon, then we really don't have much of a debate here. That said, I think there is a real danger in thinking that an individual or group has been ordained or otherwise selected to fulfill some historic or cosmic destiny by some supramundane entity. I think we have to get away from the idea that we are fulfilling a "manifest destiny" or that certain pieces of land have been "given to us" by God. There is a certain assumption of unwarranted superiority implicit in thinking this way. It's often used only as a religious justification for our surviving at the expense of others who quite often believe something very similar at our expense. It is not morally correct to divide people up in such dubious categories as sinner and saint, us or them, unholy for lawful me, yet not unholy for unlawful you. Despite our books and our traditions, we are not a city of light unto the nations...to claim that there are special places on the earth that are holy, or holier than other places points to ego or ethnocentrism. Why does a certain people or place need to be more holy than another? Because we desire it to be more holy, to fulfill a certain pre-established notion of our place within a devinely metaphorical view of our own identity. Would it be too blunt to say that we want to be God or gods ourselves? Or if we cannot, then at the very least we can share a place in His Eternal Kingdom...whatever or wherever THAT is. Ten thousand years of loosely interpretable mythos and solar gods seems like enough all ready...How many times must we transliterate the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Ancient Vedas to suit our current fashions? Time to get REAL while we still have a planet to live on. We can no longer afford to wait for a Messiah to save us. When will we wake up to the fact that we are collectively bringing about the end of the world by BELIEVING that it MUST happen this way. That it is all part of God's plan--the destruction of the world! What does THAT say about who WE really are? Are people who BELIEVE in the End Times, or Hell, or the end of the world in 2012, really just sadistic or nihilistic? Maybe we just want the world to end so we can go to our Other More Holy Place sooner, after all, what could this wretched world be compared to THAT Heaven? How about our one and only real home, without those fences and walls and barbwires, unpromised to by noone, and yet so hardly believed in for itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: atheism-not! Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: atheism-not! Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: atheism-not! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: atheism-not! Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: atheism-not! Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: atheism-not! Posted by: Starfall Deception
» RE: atheism-not! Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: atheism-not! Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: atheism-not! Posted by: jroth420
» BURDEN OF PROOF Posted by: soowee
I'll take an atheist for president just to keep religion out of politics.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 19, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And frankly, I am so sick and tired of pols misusing religion to screw up this nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are only three logical conclusion in regards to "God"...
Posted by: Deke on Dec 19, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1.) God exists, and is moral. Therefore, it is a mistake to worship him.

2.) God exists, and is immoral. Therefore, it is a mistake to worship him.

3.) God does not exist, and never did. Therefore, it is a mistake to worship him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» remind me: which god is fun? Posted by: aislinnluv
» I just gave you a high-5 Posted by: Ripcord
» And god needs money to! Posted by: donl51
i believe in physics, not god; however
Posted by: aislinnluv on Dec 19, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my opinion about why people want a god to believe in is that people still desire a "parent" who can reward or punish, and take care of his "children", thus relieving them of some responsibility. i don't know if there is a comparable practice in any other religions beyond christianity, but the idea that saying "sorry, daddy, i was wrong and you're right" just before expiring allows one to enter into daddy's good books (i.e., heaven) seems pretty juvenile to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I, however... Posted by: Lauren
» you seem to deny the possibility Posted by: aislinnluv
"Evolution versus creationism"
Posted by: global_commoner on Dec 19, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following article is the latest from Share International magazine. Please see the site for some additional BREAKING NEWS on an extraordinary event that is about to happen.

www.Share-International.org


Evolution versus creationism

by the Master —, through Benjamin Creme, 9 November 2008

Many people believe, or affect to believe, that this world as it stands today is not more than 5,000 years old; that Man and all the creatures of the animal kingdom and the rocks of the mineral kingdom were created in a few days, fully fledged and finished in all aspects.

They hold that evolution is a myth, that the Christian Bible account of creation is literally true and correct. To accept such a theory it is necessary to close one’s eyes to science in general and to the sciences of geology, anthropology, palaeontology and archaeology in particular.

It is indeed true to say that there was a time when men did not walk the Earth, when dinosaurs, gigantic in size, roamed and ruled instead. It is also true that, according to Our reckoning, Man’s history is infinitely older than today’s science believes. By today’s reckoning, humanity is approximately five or six million years old at the most. By Our science and tradition, however, early animal-man had reached the point when individualization became possible, and the ‘Sons of mind’ began their long journey of evolution. It has taken Man 18-and-a-half million years to reach the level of today. How then is it possible for intelligent, educated ‘creationists’ to hold, against the evidence of science, what seems to be a ludicrous concept?


Cross-purposes

The answer lies in the fact that the evolutionists and the creationists are really arguing at cross-purposes; both, in their limited way are right. Modern scientists, looking objectively at the findings of Darwin, have accumulated a wealth of evidence for the case of evolution, a long, slow development of men from animal ancestors, in particular by the development of mind.

The creationists look to the Christian Bible as their guide, ignoring the fact that the Bible was written by hundreds of people over hundreds of years; that it is written in symbolic language, and is meant to be symbolic rather than factual. The creationist is at pains to emphasise that ‘Man’ was made by God, in ‘God’s own image’, and so owes nothing to evolution. To such, Darwin and those who follow him are missing the point about Man: that he is a spiritual being, of divine heritage, and if he does not always behave as God’s creation he has been corrupted by Satan.


Bridged

Can these two diametrically opposed views be bridged and expanded at the same time? From Our point of understanding the scientists of today, the evolutionists, are undoubtedly correct in their analysis of Man’s development from the animal kingdom. We owe our physical bodies to the animal kingdom. That, however, does not make us animals. Darwin, and those who correctly followed his thought, describes only the outer, physical development of Man, largely ignoring that we are all engaged in the development of consciousness. The human body has all but reached its completeness: there remains little further to be achieved. From the standpoint of consciousness, however, man has scarcely taken the first steps towards a flowering which will prove that man is indeed divine, a Soul in incarnation. One day, the fact of the Soul will be proved by science and so become generally accepted, and the old dichotomy will be healed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Evolution versus creationism" Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
Ultimus
Posted by: peter193710 on Dec 19, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Almost correct but only almost.
Human thinking is progressive,in evolution,
religious thinking is also in progress.
Along history the measure of progress was
the decrease of the number of the Gods in the frame of one religion. Now it is the era
of 1, i.e. monotheistic religions.
You try to convince us that 0 (zero)is better.
But it is not the best. We have to go one step further- to negatheism, the religion with
a negative number of gods. In practice that
means that Gods have to be created, obviously
humans have to develop in gods- a very old idea, by the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crazy, and loving it
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Dec 19, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe it's at all difficult to understand why most people find faith so appealing. What is difficult, in the extreme, is imagining our own ultimate extinction. It's far more comforting to suspend common sense and imagine instead a Pie In The Sky afterlife of bliss. . . somewhat like a simple case of selective credulity. In addition, having grown up with religious fanatics, I can tell you that religion also holds a lot of appeal because it relieves its adherents of the burdensome chore of doing their own thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Crazy, and loving it Posted by: Jennie
» RE: Crazy, and loving it Posted by: Jennie
Anthropology and Religion Studies
Posted by: muktuk on Dec 19, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author really really needed to have read an "Introduction to Cultural Anthropology" textbook, before trying to re-invent decades of scholarly research in religion studies by social scientists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion, Athiesm and Happiness
Posted by: Tim V on Dec 19, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To address the claim that believers are generally happier than non-believers:
A lot of studies on this seem to lump principled secular humanists in with those who are adrift W/no sense of direction in life - that could very well produce a result that the average believer is happier than the average non-believer. Secondly, the happyness benefits of religious belief don't accrue to those who are forced or peer pressured into participating in religious activities. After all, sex is essential for human happiness, but not if it's inflicted on people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion, Athiesm and Happiness Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» RE: eligion, Athiesm and Happiness Posted by: pelican beak
Is There a God?
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Dec 19, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the words of a former President, it depends on what the meaning of is is.

In the minds of believers there is a God. Even atheists believe there is a God, given that meaning of the word is.

For the rest of us, in our minds there is no God and in our opinion there most probably is no God. Possibly more important, in our perceived needs there is no God.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"God is a Concept by which we measure our pain"- Lennon
Posted by: Purple Girl on Dec 19, 2008 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More like the concept by which religion measures the pain it inflicts on Humanity.
As a Recovered Catholic, my attitude towards organized hierarchial religions is severly Tainted.
But here are some basic Facts
By a god or by a freak of nature,We are the only Species on the planet with the mental and physical ablities to 'run the place'- so thinking ourselves 'special' is understandable and Justified.
We may never know how everything started, and may not live to see it end- so arguements about either are irrelevant. we can only rectify the recent past and direct the near future, to a point.It is only the present which we have some command over.
Shit happens we can not control and/or we do not understand.Victims of cirumstances created by forces more powerful than ourselves, some scientifically explainable, some not.
What seems to epitomize all Fatihs (and No Faiths) is Hope. Whether it's hoping you go to 'heaven' or hoping you'll get through this economic meltdown with a shirt on your back.
So how to get a dialogue going about Religious Truce, is to start with the basic Facts...
We are the Stewards and WE all Hope
How we got here, why we are motivated to act a stewards, what helps explain the unexplainable and how it all will end is acedemic...Philosophical Bullshit.
Isn't placing one 'creation' over another in a hierachial structure, placing a value on those creations ...thus insinuating God Screwed up somewhere? and through THEIR authority can be deemed wretched, sinners, heretics. when someone proclaims another is 'going to Hell' are they not taking liberties far above their 'payscale'. Aren't they really making a value judgement on God's ability to create? If god had Sent down 'His Only Son' to give Humanity a path to salvation...Wasn't Judas merely a Tool in God's Great Design? Who are we to Judge Judas? Who are we to judge the manner in which God provided this opportunity. Who's to really say Judas is not loved by god for having accepted his Fate Man's salvation? Who really knows if Peter may be suffering because his Betrayals did not move the agenda forward, only served to spare his own ass from persecution.
And is that not the meaning of Faith....That there is a reason for everything, that the design is not ours toalways know or comprehend, thus giving us an reason to Hope.Aren't we all really Praying everytime we Hope? Aren't we just picking and choosing which 'operator' we use to get connected. Aren't these various religious figures just Icons, sacred cows? Aren't we Putting these idols Before God, since we are required to go through them first. Doesn't that make god the Second fiddle? If we are jumping through hoops to meet the Middlemans demands, couldn't we be neglecting or even negating the Requirements laid down by Almighty Creator.If a Chrisitan kills a Muslim, then has he not overridden Gods Commandments to satisfy the 'broker'.
Unless we are 'Vampires' a Creator should have the ability to communicate with any and all of it's creations.So isn't religion nothing more than the 'company' You use to get connected- AT&T or Verizon? If AT&T goes bankrupt, do we stop trying to communicate? If mass communication was destroyed, would we stop talking to each other entirely- conversations, letters, smoke signals.
Theres a reason 'Party Lines' and Central Operators have been disgarded for direct line connections.I think it's time Humanity Update it's Religious 'technology' too.Get the Damn third party off the Line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Superstition
Posted by: jstuv on Dec 19, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only mammal (or maybe this thinking thing is an insect) to have a logical approach to the question: Why Atheism May Be Best.

To approach an answer to the question -why “man” believes in a deity- one might say that the human desires to explain that which he doesn’t understand, even with superstition.


“There are only three logical conclusions in regards to "God"...

1.) God exists, and is moral. Therefore, it is a mistake to worship him.

2.) God exists, and is immoral. Therefore, it is a mistake to worship him.

3.) God does not exist, and never did. Therefore, it is a mistake to worship him”.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very well put... Posted by: SevenStarHand
» RE: Superstition Posted by: Beck
I've never met an atheist that really had any deep thoughts on religion
Posted by: Jasonix on Dec 19, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sam Harris' screeds are juvenile drivel. Has anyone ever seriously read a work by an atheist that shed any real, satisfying light on the human condition? Has anyone ever even read an atheist who groks simple concepts like metaphor, let alone complex issues about language and its limitations?

Don't get me wrong. I'm really interested in the notion of negative theology, the idea that God's true nature cannot be expressed in human words, and that all theological language tells us something about ourselves more than it does about what's eternally true. Ignosticism is an interesting position.

But all the atheists I've ever met are just as literalistic and simple-minded as any fundamentalist; they just take the contra position. Perhaps they're necessary to combat fundamentalism. But if your philosophy is "atheism," then all you've got is a denial of the notion that God is basically like a big guy. Pretty flimsy, and intellectually lazy - your philosophy is just a negative denial of some other idea? What do you positively assert? Atheism is nothing - LITERALLY.

[« Reply to