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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

The only thing I have to say is Hinduism is not polytheistic. I understand how it is interpreted that way, but the truth of the matter is its somewhere between poly- and monotheistic, a little close to the mono- side.

While they may seem to have many deities, all of those deities are an extension of one singular god, the many helping hands if you will. Jesus had his Apostles, and they weren't considered gods; its the same in my understanding of the Hindu faith.

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

People believe in God, Allah or some other culturally conditioned deity because they're afraid to die, period. Even though many thousands of people like myself have had near-death experiences in which their souls have left their bodies and then returned, even though many of them have written several hundred books about it, billions of fearful followers still cling to their church dogma. Why? because they have been threatened with eternal hellfire if they don't. Thus, the churches practice psychological terrorism to keep their victims mentally enslaved so they will give over a percentage of their income.

The ironic, paradoxical truth is that the afterlife is a real spiritual dimension of our existence, and 100% of all physical beings go there in one capacity or another. The books of Robert Monroe explain it in remarkablr detail, and so do many other books by many other near-death experiencers.

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

I've been an atheist all my life (was born one, in fact) and now, at the age of 65, I can safely tell you that there aren't any new arguments or perspectives to be had about a god or gods or religion. My own style is not to say that I know THE TRUTH, but that I will treat the not-existence of anything supernatural _as a fact_ and live my life accordingly until such time as contrary evidence comes along and compels me to change my view. That actually makes me something of an agnostic. And if some god doesn't like all this, then let him do something about it or shut up. Or maybe we are all exactly what he wants us to be. Isn't it said that everything serves God's plan?

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

WHY are these stories so important to humans? Why is it important for us to tell symbolic and metaphorical stories to explain aspects of the human condition? Why do we have a story about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why are we so different from other mammals, beginning with our non-duplicated brain halves, with their differing function? We have an analytical left brain, that handles math, reading, and violence; an artistic right brain that sees things in the whole.

Why do we, of all mammals, seem to have powerful imaginations? Why has our culture, our cultures, become so complicated as to need rules, laws, doctrine?

But why do these stories, which are so similar across world religions, matter to many of us, even after thousands of years? Think of all the forgotten stories, myths, legends. It's remarkable that some last, and that religions copy each other, seeing the stories that resonate deeply and therefore matter. When I read that science is all we need, I see trouble ahead. What do we do, then, with that troubling urge, that yearning humans have to find meaning, to work our societal problems, to gaze at the stars and not just see light, but see poetry, hear music, feel inspired by the sight? Why do we do this and need this? We can't just lobotomize ourselves and pretend that only the left brain exists, although that certainly seems like a Republican priority, as school overemphasize math and science, with students who mostly have no hope of using it to the level it's being taught, and constantly attempt to cut art and music?

Why are artists and musicians seen as so troublesome? Why is art so often controlled? Why ARE artists so uncontrollable, such misfits, so visionary?

The interesting writer Leonard Shlain wrote a book, Art and Physics, in which he makes the claim that all advances in science are preceeded by an innovation in art which facilitates the change in thinking that allows the scientific innovation. His book The Alphabet vs. the Goddess makes a very good case that the ability to read, especially in cultures that are newly acquiring it en masse, precipitates violence because of the greatly-enhanced left-brain function. He traces world history and makes a very good case for this.

If we don't ask why humans feel drawn to a God and to related yearnings, such as the seemingly useless urge to write poetry or make sculptures and symphonies, we'll never reach a useful conclusion to this train of thought. And it does seem like attempting to quash all religion just lets the fundies have full reign.

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

... there were actually 20 Commandments? Moses dropped one of the tablets on his way down the mountain into a stream of water, and it was a disperable One...

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

I really liked this article until I got to the part that dismissed agnosticism as essentially "unable to find a door." When we don't know the answers, as in any form of scientific enquiry, we don't have to begin with a specific premise and go from there. In order to determine if a person has cancer, for example, it's not necessary to first decide he or she does not have it.

The beauty of agnosticism is precisely that there is no basic premise. When we begin with the admission that we don't know the answer or outcome, it's possible to collect information, compile it, and evaluate it. With religion, there is information that indicates the existence of a higher power, and there is also information that negates almost every belief. If one does not take a stand, it's much more possible to think objectively.

It's rather arbitrary to say, "Okay, let's decide that god does not exist. Now we can examine the information that indicates the existence of god or, perhaps multiple gods, and compare the evidence." There was nothing in the article to convince me that this is a more intelligent, cohesive, or valid approach than saying, "We don't know if there's a god or not. Now we can examine the evidence both ways."

Of course, I've been doing this for most of my adult life - for over 40 years, and what I've come up with is that I still don't know and I don't think anyone else does either. Some people decide to believe, others decide to believe in the negative, and some of us decide that it's impossible to know for sure.

It seems to me that whether or not there is a god is not the point of this kind of exploration of spirituality and religion. It's whether or not people choose to believe it and how this manifests itself in their relationships with others including family, friends, society at large and religious communities.

Perhaps it would be more valuable to figure out what it is in human nature that makes religion such a driving force rather than trying to decide which approach is more likely to uncover the truth about deities and the nature of existence. It's rather a mute point since people have been trying to figure it out for many thousands of years and no one has been able to know for sure up until now. Not even if certain religious people think they have the ultimate answers.

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

All these religions and holy books are there to 'prepare the mind' so it can have that subjective experience. The books are tools, the rituals are also, they force the mind out of the patterns it has been accustomed to and open it up to the possibility of new experential pools.

The same can be accomplished by striving to understand the phenomenom that occur on the peripherals of our perception. The activities that usually are ascribed to the 'sub-conscious' mind. By becoming more aware of what is going on 'behind the scenes' you open up experiences that otherwise would be 'filtered out' by our conscious mind. Like the pounding of your heart or the dynamics of your breathing patterns. In fact, these are some of the techniques used to trigger more sublime experiences.

I cannot, and will not, try to force anyone to seek God if they are not inclined to do so. God doesn't really care. It is meaningless to it. I cannot claim to have had any 'Road to Damascus' type experience in my life ... yet, but I have had enough 'otherworldly' type experiences to understand that we do not know everything about our plane of existance to be able to define it completely. We may never know enough to do that.

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

Personally, I find my personal attitude drifting between Deism and agnostisim. Based on personal observation, there are traits that humans and other animals possess, such as the drive to procreate, as a mystery if life resulted from an accidental chemical reaction that occurred over a long period of time. However, as far as prayer and such, I have never seen one answered that cannot be explained away by physical laws or coincidence. But, I don't know that life with all of its quirks, including what I decribe above, isn't possible as a series of events that slowly developed as time progressed and life developed.

I tend to agree with one of the above posts that we don't and pronbably never will know for sure if there is a creator or not, thus I agree that agnostisism is probably the most honest approach.

Now, when it comes to monotheism in the religions of Christianity, Judism, and Islam, I find all of these religions pretty much a result of stories being told from observations made by a people who had no scientific knowlegde of natural processes such as floods, lighting, earthquakes, etc. and thus associated them with a god that caused these events as a punishment to them for something they may have felt to be as disobedient to their god. Further, through out time and translations, many of the translations being made by the scribes of kings who ultimately wanted to use religion as a means of controlling their population, changed and added to the writings contained in the Bible to suit their needs. George Carlin hit this one on the nail. These religions say that thier God loves them, but if they fuck up on any of his rules, then they will live out eternity in agony. They say their god is love and that he created all. When asked why wars exist, storms kill many of their people, etc., they attribute it to Satan. Well, if god created everything, he created Satan, thus all the misery associated with him. Why would a loving god created such an evil entity to amke the lives of people a living hell? Why would he create mankind with a free will that allowed him to break his rules so that they would have to suffer for eternity? Why not simpy create an obedient er, creation so they wouldn't face this horribe ending? To take it further, Christians believe that the only way to heaven (and avoid hell) is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior when if that being the case, most of the world's population would be hopelessly sentenced to hell simply because they didn't even know who JC is? Even among the different sects of Christianity there is different interpretation of the Bible and each of those different interpretations are "right" and believeing in one of the other interpretations will, of course, condemn one to hell. If god wrote the Bible, why wasn't he more clear on his demands, and why are there so many contradictions in the Bible? Finally, why do the evangelcals consider it okay to break so many of the rules the Bible lay out in order to get others to believe as they do? There is no logic whatsoever to their arguement(s). The definition of dogma is the belief in something that is either not supported by any existing evidence or is in direct conflict with evidence that does exist. These religions fit this definition like a glove.

Deism allows the possibility of a creator. After all, a creator doesn't necessarily have to be a supernatural being. A creator could be a civilization that exists somewhere out there in the stars that happened to develope a few million years before we did, thus have technology that is beyond our wildest imagination. We could be an experiment of that civilization where we were started as a primitive life form seeded on this planet and allowed to evolve and eventually either become as advanced as the civilization that started us,which would make the experiment a success, or destroy ourselves, making the experiment a failure. The bottom line is...who knows?

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

When two viewpoints are pitted against one another, in the final analysis the thing that will strike you the most is not who was right or wrong, weak or strong, wise or foolish, etc... but who would go to the greatest lengths in considering the other's
perspective.

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

The main problem I have with monotheism is that there it has too many gods.

The other problem I have is and note that this runs through out this article.

The assumption of male supremacy inherent in the usage of the male pronoun as descriptor of this imaginary sky fairy.

The main purpose of religion is as a bully in the sky used by the dominating to back their dominance of the oppressed with the authority of something divine.

Divine right of kings etc. Dominion over.

There is no divine. We are no different from other animals and all the god crap gives us less insight or morality than say a pride of lions.

All religion does is blind us to the fact that we are merely smart apes with less hair than chimpanzees.

Religion is a justification for our dominance.

This is the meaning behind "No Gods, No Masters"

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

Is that belief has to do with lack of intellect and lack of self-esteem. Stupid people and weak people will always need extra support, a moral/intellectual crutch if you will. The entire premise that there is a supreme being up in the sky that controls everything we do and influences our lives directly is ridiculous. Religion was created by rulers of men in order to control the masses. That's the whole point of it. It's all bullshit designed to control you and enslave you. Once you reject it you'll be free. That's the bottom line. Happy Holidays, Everyone!

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

The Judeo-Christian-Muslim skygod was adopted by the "Jews" during the "Babylonian Exile". We have been stuck with this childish and dangerous fantasy ever since. With this god, everyone is kept childish and dependent on an abusive and sociopathic father who redeems us from our weaknesses every once in awhile.

The worst thing about this tradition is that the Quaker god with "the tenderness" or "the still small voice" goes by the board. This is the god of direct experience who just shows up from time to time. No paranoia. No megalomania.

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

I love how the caption at the top of this piece refers to God as a him or her, as if God would be a him or her. I do not know any God personally, but I am fairly certain the idea of a God being a him or a her, black or white is ludicrous.

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

Though I'm not religious in the least, I'm also not nearly secure or knowledgable enough to proclaim there is NO God. Atheists believe in this 'non-existence', which is fine . . . if one ignores the following:

Believing something doesn't exist implies that you know what it is, since you need something to deny or the stance is essentially meaningless. And even if you know what you're denying, you must also know all and everything else in existence, in order to be certain that what you're denying - God in this case - isn't there.

So, what you actually believe is that God as you know and perceive him/her/it to be doesn't exist; a subjective opinion, rather than fact. For an objective "God doesn't exist" assumption (which is really what it is, as you simply don't have all the facts) to be true, you would need to know what you don't know . . . a classic contradiction.

I await your enlightenment (of me, I mean).

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

What some writers don't know about the spirit world! He asks why sacred texts need someone to interpret them? Because they're texts, and texts, fiction, non-fiction, and all points in between require that we read them and interpret them. Not all religions require a priest to do this, and in fact, many simply encourage readers to apply the lessons to their lives as they see fit. It was called Protestantism, use your own lights, not the priesthoods'. Those whose lives have been enhanced by attending to spiritual messages realize that very subtle influences can have very great impacts. Properly understood, we can access higher powers than our often feeble imaginations and rationalities could ever imagine.
I had a professor once that would precede all his pronouncements with phrases like, "there can be no argument," or "without doubt." He was staunchly anti-religion, but there he stood, pontificating as though he were the source of all certainty.
Literalists on the atheist side and literalists on the religious side just don't know the proper use of sacred texts. Sacred works stand waiting to provide links from ancient stories which are paradigms of timeless situations, drama you might say. Like drama, they use characters, situations, objects, and scenes to show us how to be. Perhaps the worst form of atheist is he or she who takes their view of religion from the literalists of the evangelical or catholic sort. Talk about straw men!

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

has lead humans through a myriad of paths and experiences, ideas and beliefs, but at the heart of this search is human survival. The Old and New Testament is a history of that search of one group of "believers."

The problem of the Holy Bible is not that it is divinely written, inerrant and all-telling truth; the problem is literalism, or reading the bible literally. Literalists fail to see the magic, the poetry, the HISTORY, the prophesy, the allegory, metaphors, and parables that can inspire great things. In this sense God exists in the wisdom of a people trying to survive.

Whether God exists or not is not the question, but that humans search for meaning and subscribe a meaningful search to a higher power is what gives us meaning. And, having meaning in a vast void of a universe is as important to our human survival as anything. In other words, humans survived wars and violence because of "God."

The Old Testament is a historic survival guide for a people who experienced slavery, exile, colonization, the burden of heavy taxation by foreign powers, genocide, among other imperialist ambitions within their own group. Without their faith in a uniting, benevolent, loving, chastising and hopeful God, the Hebrews would have lost their identity, their history, the meaningful purpose they were given to survive. They would become nihilists.

That's the state of american politics and religion today. A people as devoid of hope and promise of a better world seek to destroy this world, especially apocalyptic Christians, Muslims, etc. who would rather see God destroy the earth, so they can get to heaven faster, I guess.

There's no biblical precedent for destroying the earth, only the destruction of bad people, so those religious zealots who wish to fight will get their just rewards.

Those of us who see God and religions as a way to peace, love, compassion, justice and hope for a better tomorrow are embracing the humanity God gave us to end suffering in the world, so that the heaven Jesus promised on earth will be realized.

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

I must fervently disagree with your position that athiesm is the route to understanding God and agnosticism is the dead end. How is it that you think assuming there is no God would lead to a greater understanding of God, if He/She/It exists? What you have horribly wrong is that Agnosticism does *not* lead to a sterility of curiosity or inquiry - quite the opposite. You presented Agnosticism as asking no questions; rather, Agnosticism asks *all* the questions that the believers and the athiests ask, both whether there is a God (and if so what it's nature is) and whether there is not a God (and if so what the role is of human nature/psychology/biology in the religious/spiritual phenomenon). Agnosticism approaches the problem from both sides at once.

You continue to demonstrate that your understanding of this topic is base. While I appreciate your fascination with the subject, please recognize that the level of analysis and conclusions you are trying to pull off should be left to an expert in philosophy and history of religions. I have been studying this subject for three years, and I would not dare to presume that I knew enough to instruct the public at large as you do so here. Again, I implore you to drop this line of articles before your misinformation does damage. You have a responsibility to recognize the limits of your knowledge.

Thankfully, looking through what's already been written, it looks like at least some of your readers are more knowledgable on these subjects than you, and will not be misinformed.

And where in God(dess)'s name did you get your information on Wicca?

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

I am reluctant to add to this but this feeling won't go away.

There are light years separating faith/belief and knowledge.

Once you know faith and belief dissappear.

IT cannot be proven nor argued. It is recognizable in other people. In that they have less to say about it than those who are searching.

The ones who know the least usually have very long explanations supporting themselves.

When your ready you will know and not a moment sooner.

Enjoy

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

There is simply too much order and precision to this universe to have come about by chance.

Did you ever consider that atheism arose because certain people saw that religious characterizations about the nature of an omnipotent "God" were seriously flawed and then concluded that religion and the Creator were the same things? This is the exact same conclusion at the base of religious beliefs; namely that the Creator and religion are inseparable. Consequently, both atheists and religious followers are arguing over a flawed assumption without considering that other possibilities negate the common core conclusion of both groups.

These arguments are actually over religion and whether it represents a reliable model of reality. The answer to this question is of course not. Religion is not only flawed, it is purposely deceptive! Though atheists are certainly sincere in their conclusions, the fact remains that they and religious followers are locked in a debate that cannot be won by either side because both base their positions upon whether the same flawed premise is the truth. In order for this debate to conclude with a truthful answer, a greater level of discernment is required.

Read more...

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

The article is full of errors and inaccuracies.


I have to leave very shortly so I will just point out two of the errors.

1.This author should have said agnostics instead of atheists.

Atheists have already made up their mind there is NO God, and are not open to the idea that they may be wrong.

Agnostics are those who are not sure whether there is a God or not, but they are open to the possibility they are wrong.

2. He called Wicca Nontheistic. That is not true at all. They are pantheistic. They acknowledge the God and Goddess, or they acknowledge the Norse, Egyptian, Greek, etc pantheons of Deities. A nontheist is nothing but another name for Atheism.

Now Have to go out in the cold 5 degree Fahrenheit temperature.

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

Literalists go to movies and plays and imagine that the productions are actually happening, or happened as shown. They do not realize that drama is an offering that may allow the audience to individually apply lessons to their own lives when and if they need these lessons. We may not "get" the play until we actually live a bit and find ourselves recapitulating the pattern the playwright gave us as food for thought.

One thing sacred works are not, and that's tedious essays that try to pin the truth down, as T.S. Eliot famously imagined, like a wriggling butterfly stuck to a box and poisoned for one's amused collection. To the extent that sacred works and those who know how to extend them to the religious people willing to take the lessons to heart (critics, priests, the common reader) teach us to be compassionate, forgiving, and higher selves, the sacred works work. If they stir up the common hatred and cultural prejudices religion is supposed to counter (like the drama and higher literary endeavors) then religion is simply misused and without it's proper function. Worse. With a negative function. It's as though some people read the Bible or other works to act out the worst rather than the best behavior in the situations.

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

Can someone remind me of where this quote comes from? (Apologies if it's a misquote):

"All religion is in fact atheism. When you truly understand why you disregard other people's gods, then you will understand why I disregard yours."

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

where is the evidence that delusion is always dysfunctional? Nietzsche suggested that the truth could be poisonous, and that man may have developed best when holding false beliefs. Was he wrong? Are we sure? The belief in universal "enlightenment" as necessarily universally benevolent is in itself, well, just that - a belief and not an established fact.

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

Basically I liked the article, even though I see myself as a Christian, but I think the more basic question is one's outlook on life and reality. I'd love to say lots of things but I would need to write a book to get it all said...(so I'll spare my readers!) Just a couple of quick points:
1. atheism is a belief too; one either believes there is a God or believes there is not a God. Convincing proof of either is hard to come by, since it depends on the other too.
2. We have to look at life with religion (or Bible, etc.) in one hand and the world and our daily news in the other hand.
3. I'm sure God wants us to have a real respect for everyone else and their views; we aren't supposed to force our views down their throats. People need to be "converted", and it can only happen with a loving attitude. The hard part is knowing where to draw the line if you think someone else is being abusinve to you or others.

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

What has belief to do with it?

As science and history have proven, beliefs are often erroneous.

The scientific attitude one should assume to any subject is to whether its true.

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

Mr. Reinhart, why do you need to understand God?
Starting that there isn't anything in our reality even close to the concept "God". Right, you will tell me that that's a supernatural concept excluded from our Universe of realities. Then my question is: How you can test or find evidence that there is such thing as a "Supernatural" reality?
Mr. Larry Reinhart, if we start with a false premise, all your speculations will partake of that falsehood. There is no way to gain an understanding of something that doesn't exist in any realm, natural or supernatural... All you can generate is a warped run around the evidence to purport a belief in an imaginary "God" penned down by ancient writers devoid of any real knowledge of our Universe.
Now, Religion, per se, has nothing to do with the issue that there is or not a God, nor with any fact of our Universe. Religion has to do with tradition and politics of and within our primitive societies. Has to do with rituals that provide a false sense of belonging to a particular social structure. And it has to do with the referents that help to exclude others from our particular social structure. Beyond that it is useless and helps nothing to our understanding of our daily lives.
But there is a very detrimental side to Religion. Introducing guidelines for the behavior of the believers, prevent them for seeking the understanding of their situation within their Universe, and excludes any consideration of the need to walk a balanced path in our relationships with our fellows and our environment. All is already foreseen and decided in the eyes of each particular religion and all the explanations are just justifications to appease any doubt in the mind of people about the reality or fairness of the demanded behavior.
We have suffered enough as consequence of such fascism. We need to eradicate any remnant of religionism in our world before it will ultimately destroy us…
Your attempt appears sincere albeit misguided. We won't solve the strife that religion brings into our lives by furthering the understanding of a non-existing God or of religions founded under such pretenses. We will solve it only by making religions obsolete and health the sick condition which symptoms are the beliefs…

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

...and I could care less if you, or you, or you believe in a god, an allah, a vishnu, a zeus or an odin.

I've deliberately not capitalized the names of the deities because that's a sign of respect toward these imaginary beings which they do not deserve. By doing this, in this context, I'm deliberately waving a red flag at all all the religious bulls here on Alternet.org, otherwise I'd follow conventional literary convention.

Be that as it may, as an atheist I'm perfectly willing to live and let live as long as the theists do the same. Of course if one spends an inordinate amount of time praying to god, or vishnu or allah that some day I'll see the "light" (whatever that is), he is wasting his time. Not mine.

Contrariwise if one wants to pray, I'll break slip and break my leg today, she'll get better results as there was an ice storm over night. Perhaps odin or zeus or the Hittite Weather God casued last night's storm? But it's still a waste of her precious time.

Bottom line is, I don't care in what you believe just respect what I think.

I don't care if a nativity creche is set up on city hall's lawn, just as long as vishnu-worshipers get to set up some kind of display on their deity's holiest day. That's only fair, isn't it? That's the American way, isn't it?

But as an atheist what I'm sick and tired of is, these pinheaded fundamentalists, from the fundy-lite of "Purpose-Drive" Rick Warren to the paleo-fundamentalism of Fred Phelps, saying that the United States of America is a "Christian nation."

So until you "Christians" get it through your thick skulls that in the United States of America, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... you and I will never play nice.

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

I am so glad that I no longer do acid, drink or do other drugs.
I'm an atheist.
Where are those surveyors? They never came around to ask me whether I'm happy, have a good sexlife, etc.

I haven't ever felt any need to talk to an imaginary entity and actually try to get an answer.
I learned that there are things I cannot control and, none of those things are ME.
I am the only one and/or thing which I can actually control.
I have no neurotic need to attempt to get anyone else to think the way I do.
I don't go through life worrying that, if I say goddamnit or some other whatever that I'm going to go to hell.
I have already been in places/situations which could be termed "hell".
As long as I live my life as the sort of person which allows me to feel comfortable with my own self, I then feel no need for anyone else's concept of should/shouldn't, etc.
I have found a very comfortable personal existence and, it is all within myself.

BTW-With all the above so stated, I'm a guy who says merry christmas during these times as, it feels friendly and, that is enough meaning for me.

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

If we start with belief, this is the root question: Why won't God make himself clear?
Only an atheist in search of denial would see this as a root question. It is actually an irrelevant question. In your world, what would clear mean to homo habilis or what would clear mean to homo sapiens, In the space time continuum we call the creation or the dimension of the flush, what does clear mean to which people at what point in time? From the time of Adam and the awakening to this day and to the days of the future we are on a journey. So a better question for us with our limited knowledge and understanding is what is the purpose of the creation? We only know some of the ground rules. “God is perfect, God gets it right every time.” This is kind of a dumb thing to say if you believe that during the awakening we were given knowledge, free will and dominion over the dimension of the flush. We are on our own except that we do get a little interaction with the dimension of God from time to time to increase our knowledge and understanding, the path of our journey is narrow.

"This is it. The revealed truth. The one and only. You can kill me, and I won't give that up. If you want to fight about it, I'll kill you." Did Mao or Stalin or Nero say this also? Actually we are more likely to say let those who can hear, hear.

“Each tradition” there is only one fundamental tradition in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. God is God. Does your theory of evolution teach that there is strength in diversity? Our story of the Tower of Babel teaches us this also. Maybe someday we Christians will teach Jews and Muslims that we should not let our traditions overcome our faith.

Why is it that the culture someone is born into is, far and away, the most important determinant of which revelation they believe in? We also need a way to allow the children to come unto God. Revelations are means not ends.

Prophets speak to the people of their time. If a new prophet arrives tomorrow, you will know that they are a true prophet, if the things they say come true.

Your attitude sounds a lot like some fundamentalist Christians. You seem to believe that you are the end time. We accept that time is a construct of the creation and does not exist in the dimension of God. The end time is the end of creation, time and space cease to exist.
Our Father who art in heaven hollow be thy name, thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven, while that will not be the end time, that will be the truth time you seek, for us it is the time of the understanding. That is the journey, from the time of the awakening to the time of the understanding. Like I said before we are more likely to say let those who can hear, hear.
Do not be so quick to blame God for what men do, we have a hard enough of a time surviving by the sweat of our brow. What makes religion so powerful is the belief that, God created us and we serve a purpose. We each wage an individual battle to apply our understanding God and our purpose in our daily lives. Islam has a word for this it is called Jihad.

A question for you, which is the true atheist the Mao atheist, the Stalin atheist or the American atheist or are they all the same? It seems fair that US courts have held that atheism is a religion and entitled to the same rights and freedoms of all religions.

Not exactly like the dime store Elmer Gantry version is it?

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

Atheism IS a belief. Religion involves beliefs. Only agnosticism is NOT a belief.

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

Is Man's way of lessening his fear of death. An immortal soul provides a sense of security, and is to be earned by practicing the dogma of each specific religious faith. It is a valid means for many in surviving the great trials and sorrows of human existance, regardless of whether "GOD" exists or not.

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

i still would NOT WORSHIP IT!!!

The less uneducated and poorer the people, the more they believe in someone up there watching them, judging them. The primitive mind needs a master to blame for their mental laziness to think on their own, to be responsible for their own actions!

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

This article suffers from the taxonomy disease. When you put everything into categories you end up having to make ridiculous statements (like "Delusion is, by definition, dysfunctional") to try to make your categories stand up. The premise in the title is an interesting one.. too bad most of the article didn't address it. It too, however, seems to lack imagination. How about this statement:

"I am an atheist and I would understand much less about God if there weren't religious people around."

How do you account for that in your categories? It's certainly true. Without religious people an atheist would understand exactly nothing about God because there wouldn't be anyone there to define God for him. Things are more complex than the author allows for, thus his conclusion is not useful. I'm disappointed with this article, frankly.

Oh.. and delusion can be extremely functional. That particular sentence had the least imagination in the whole piece.

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

I have had the privilage to have a booth next to an Atheists' organization at two consecutive Earth Day celebrations. Our booth was about the World Teacher Maitreya.

The people manning the atheist booth have not had problems with Maitreya. Observing the people going up to the atheist booth, they seemed to be attracted to atheism as a safe haven from overly dogmatic and repressive culture that exists in segments of churchianity. There was a definite desire to find a place that would not beat them up and restrict them from being themselves.

Being in a booth about Maitreya, who many rabid fundamentalists perceive as the antichrist, it has been odd to see a large gang of fundamentalist thugs descend each year on the atheist booth while leaving us alone. The fundamentalist reaction to atheism demonstrates the usefulness of atheism as a healing, de-conditioning place on the path to self-realization.

On the issue at hand, the practice of meditation has been used by saints, gurus and others seeking enlightenment forever. Meditation is the process of extraction - getting out of the body, emotions, mind and ultimately the spirit to be able to witness the vehicles of Self while experiencing that which cannot be found through deductive analysis. There the Supreme Being can begin to be realized. Maitreya speaks to what this is not - our conditioning and the isms (whether atheism, churchism, etc.) isms create.

Excerpts of Maitreya's viewpoints include:

“When you look at the children, you are inspired by their grace, peace and happiness, because their mind, spirit and body are free from ‘isms’. Go out and look at the faces of the children. This is a special generation.”

“If you are free of desires the journey becomes easier for the soul to experience all these things in quick succession. But if there are too many ‘isms’ the soul’s journey becomes that much more difficult.”

‘Isms’ lead to self-destruction. All types of temptation can be found in ‘isms’; corruption, duplicities and dishonesty in life all come from ‘isms’. People who indulge in fundamentalisms (ie whether these be economic, religious or political) either run away or, if they remain stuck, destroy themselves.

Maitreya says, when you have a human form, why sacrifice the Self in the name of certain ideologies, inspired by politicians, religious leaders, etc? When the Self falls prey to the powers of mind, spirit and body, you lose your free will. These powers will goad the Self to commit acts against its will. You become a slave to conditioning.

Maitreya emphasizes, “Be sincere in your spirit, be honest in your mind, be detached.” When you surrender the Self to mind, spirit and body (when you identify with thought, power and matter), everything becomes predestined. This means that you are subject to conditioning, your thoughts and acts are the result of conditioning, you lose your free will. Thus attachment is loss of freedom. Detachment is freedom.

The moment you experience freedom from mind, spirit and body (ie from conditioning) you realize you are the eternal spark of the Supreme Creator. Each and every thing around you and within you belongs to the Almighty. It cannot be gained or lost. It is indivisible. It belongs to One and All.

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

I can tell you why atheists are not happier than religious folk. We atheists have a lot more weight to carry, the weight of the world so to speak. I see every day the awful things that happen to good people, to children, to animals. I pay attention. And I know that all evils against man are done by men, and see that humanity is a brutal, savage, primitive creature. I know that all evils against animals are done by man, or by nature (which is also cold and unfeeling). I can't blame a devil, I can't pretend it's somehow "god's will"-- it is what it is and nothing more. And that makes me unhappy. It makes me feel responsible as a member of this species, yet helpless to stop any of it.
Religious people have a major advantage-- organized groups. They are delusional, but the delusion is shared among the majority, which allows it to become its own reality within that bubble. When the bubble covers 85% of the world, it is actually easier and nicer inside the bubble than out. That doesn't make it true, or real. Inside the bubble, your destiny is guided by the hand of god (so you don't have to make your own decisions, or take responsibility for them), and god is looking out for you (which means you don't need to pay attention to what's happening around you). This takes an amazing amount of stress out of your daily life, even if your perception is an illusion. Mind over matter, as they say.
Another benefit to this organization is that religious people do things to benefit other religious people. A powerful CEO who goes to your church is willing to hire you BECAUSE you go to his church. Wealth is spread among the group and multiplied. The Mormons are a good example of that. Mormon companies will not hire non-Mormons, unless they have to. That makes life in Salt Lake City very difficult if you're not a Mormon.
So yeah, religious people are happier, live longer, have more money. They are also living an illusion which, when it does come in contact with the real, physical world, usually ends badly for all involved.
I agree with the premise that the only way to objectively investigate god (or the absence of) is from an atheistic perspective. Unfortunately, when you do that, this whole pesky science thing gets in the way and pretty much relegates god to the position of myth or long-dead bad-tempered alien.
It's not all bad in the atheist's world though-- I find profound beauty in the elegance and scope of the universe and the smallness of man. I find some consolation knowing that there's NOT a narcissistic, vengeful god hanging around over our planet just waiting to punish his creations for his own perverted amusement. And I'm nice to people not because I'm afraid some god might hold it against me when I die, but instead because it's the right thing to do.

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

And Just Tossed them off all around the Universe with Suns and stuff to keep them warm

And just left us all to it for the next Trillion Years to see how we all get on.

God probably expected the Survival Rate of his Experiments to be Quite Low

AND YET

WE - US EARTHLINGS ARE STILL HERE

We could be in the First Division or Near The Bottom of The Last - About To Get Relegated To HELL

How The Hell Can We Know?

God Doesn't Post Planet League Tables (Well Not So Far as I Know - Ask Tony Blair or George Bush - They Seem to Think They Have a Direct Link To The Devil)

Tony

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

"Clearsighted atheists should routinely be happier, healthier and wealthier than delusional believers. But they're not. According to most surveys, they don't even have a better sex life."

Those surveys were mostly of Americans, who live in a culture where atheists are among the least trusted group. They live as outcasts.

In other more liberal countries where atheism is more "normal", atheists are at least as happy as the rest of the population.

And what makes you think that wealth is a good indication of anything but greed? Most people regard stability, safety and family as the best measure of sucess.

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

the atheist/theist argument seems to me to be yet another false dichotomy...the problem with both (and all ideology/religion) isn't the ideology/religion itself but the PEOPLE who are involved...theosophy is a broad ideology/belief that all religions have something to add to human existence...theosophers look not only to religions, but also to art, science and philosophy. the way i see it problems arise when people become too narrow minded and rigid in their beliefs and dogma...this is as true of theists as atheists...

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

are the related questions "do you exist" and "does an objective world exist". You can't begin to make a rational inquiry as to god without informing discussion with assumed answers those two questions.

What do you men by "I" -- personal identity, seemingly persistant through time -- despite the vast changes which one undergoes through life? And, secondly, does an objective reality exist -- presumably encompassing some concept of god for most schools of thinking (unless you assume you are god or an aspect of god).

How can you assess a relationship with a god if you don't define who you are first (and isn't that a major motivation for talking about god to start with)?

In terms of ontology and personal existentialism the question of god comes several steps further on in the list basic questions.

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

I won't try to dissect each paragraph of the writer's work, but his article reads like it was written by an 8th grader using his World Book Encyclopedia. I've been an atheist for over 50 years and his whole take on atheism/agnosticism/theism is ridiculous. Theists believe that the world is under the influence or watchful eye of supernatural beings; agnostics take the stand that the existence or nonexistence of such beings cannot be proven; atheists don't believe supernatural beings exist. People who believe do so because they are inadequately educated in science and have a deficit in their ability to think rationally. It's not that difficult.

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

As in most other areas of western society, the discussion is moving away from whether something is "True" to whether it useful. It is a product of modernity (the enlightenment) to propose all questions as to whether they are true of false. If the last 100 years of western history have shown anything, it is that we are starting to no longer value that as a starting position. Especially in the North American church, this fight between those who insist on knowledge of God versus those who believe in the utility of god (or gods) has become increasingly high-pitched.

Although society has always been violent, it is a broad stroke indeed to paint all of that as religious. More often it is about things that we care more about then God, namely power (be it money, land, information, etc). The fall of the roman empire was about land, not religion. The crusades were about land, not religion. The current "war on terrorism" is about land (resources), not religion. But it has always been effective for the powers of this world to use religion as a tool for geopolitical control.

And throughout history, in every faith, there have been those that recognize that whatever the broader truth might be, it is the individual experience of it that matters. A strain of pacifistic, mystical faith that loops its way through all the major religions. In our world today, people of all faiths (or none at all)are slowly moving away the question of absolute truth, to the question of what is useful to them in life.

Atheism is as useless a stopping point as post-Reformation Christianity. It is two different groups both looking at something and claiming the other is wrong about it. It is an unresolvable, and in my opinion, outdated question. It is as outdated as analytic philosophy, Descartes, and structuralist literary criticism. Until we move past this transition period, and begin to ask what is useful for us, we will be mired in pointless discussions and useless paradigms.

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

I have heard from many who are agnostic that atheism is so absolutist and egotistical. Well, I am an atheist because I just simply don't care if there is some big guy up in the sky. It is not because I emphatically believe in the absolute non-existence of a deity, just as I can't say for sure that leprechauns do not exist. I just do not believe that they exist, because of a lack of empirical evidence. And I find that living without worrying or questioning the idea of god is much more liberating (for me).

Then there are those who believe that atheists have nothing to base their morals upon. Well, there is something called Humanism, which takes into account the logic behind "doing the right thing." I would not want someone to steal or kill me, so therefore I would not steal or murder anyone else. The naturalism that I prescribe to is just a belief that all life is connected.... and I find that to be beautiful.

While, I am wholeheartedly against organized religion because of the atrocities people have committed against one another with justification from some silly book or leader, I do not pass judgment upon those who choose to believe in a god/goddess, Allah, Zeus or Vishnu... as long as they keep it personal and leave the rest of us alone.

peace.

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

The way this guy twists language and logic, he ought to be in the religion business.
Agnostic

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

I find it humorous that so many sheeple can not see that all religions are man-made. When a person tells me that if I do not pray or perform some ridiculous act to be “saved.” I have only one thought… How do they know this? Since all religions profess to be the only truth, then any debate of this nature leads to one conclusion: All the different religions can’t ALL be right. However they can most certainly ALL be wrong. When someone does proclaim to know the truth, then I know I am looking at a fool or a charlatan.
Christopher Hitchens “God is not great” is a book that all should read.

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

The psychology point is the one at which my opinion diverges from the author's. I am agnostic, and I certainly ask what motivates the religious. Whether God or only some certain revelation of God is authentic is really irrelevant to why people do what they do. They do it because they believe it is true. Why they can be so certain without hard evidence is a point of concern, but you can look at motivation by fear, the desire to fit in, the need to be "right," regular aggressive emotions being justified because they are manifest through religious fighting, racism, cultural identification akin to nationalist thinking, tradition, sentimentalism, and just falling under the spells of the charismatic. And I think a lot of people also like to have rules for themselves and respond very well to not having to decide for themselves on ethical and moral issues. I can see all this without treading upon whether these people are believing in a delusion or in a real being.

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

A qoute from Immanuel Kant, "Two things fill me with wonder, the starry sky above and the moral law within"

I share Kant's wonder about the Universe!

I mean really, whether you believe in god or believe in atheism, or are agnostic: One HAS to be amazed that all this stuff exists at all! One cannot help but be awed by it all.
Suppose there was no devine intervention, isn't it a miracle that it just up and started itelf into existence? Isn't there just something holy and sacred about That!

Where did it all come from? Where is it all going? And the most disturbing question of all, Where is Here?
Where is this Cosmic Manifestation AT, in relation to WHAT? How can one know where Here is, if there is no THERE also?

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

Too many words to summarize a topic that is way too easy:

NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN GOD, NEVER

That solves the problem about his/her/its existence.

Religion is something different. Religion is an extremely complicated social, and individual issue.
It is social because it is part of the political engeneering of a society, to such an extent that religions are and have always been inextricably intertwined with power, state, government and armies.
Religous churches and creeds have always been through history political parties representing the interests of one or another cast or class.
On the other hand and in another level, religion is an individual, personal and intimate private matter because it relates to the most fragile side of all and each of us very deep inside: the emotional feeling of solitud, fragility, temporality and nothingness.
This no matter in which century or milenia a human being has lived in, because it is unchangeable through time and it is what it constitutes us as human beings.
That feeling of being "Dust in the Wind", the fact that we live a life determined by the everyday coping with the idea of death, sikness and loss.
Religion seats on that "hole in our soul" and it is very unlikely religion will ever fade out, since our own fragility as a human race won't.
No wonder religious people are supposed to be happier.
They have a standarize, pre-packed, pre-cooked by somebody else and ready to eat set of rules and answers that deal with the "hole in the soul" so they don't have to think about it.
When you go to a doctor, what you want is a cure, not to understand what is killing you.
Same behavior applies to religion.
As a non believer, many times (probably close to a hundred) I've got questioned "how can you live without believing in anything?"
Let's leave aside the brutally ignorant assumption that not believing in god equals not believing in anything, which is derived from the previous statement.
Other than that, to me, that question clearly defines the need to believe as an existentially defined urgency.
That is the psychological (and not genetical)footprint of what we are as finite, conscious and emotional beings.
What I believe is that the human race will make itself a huge favor if one day it will rise up and abolish all state, all political parties and all institutionalised religion.
That could taste a lot more like freedom, solidarity, brotherhood (and sisterhood, of course)and equality than any priest-pope-guru-prophet-god false authority.

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

Richard Dawkins provided some very relevant perspectives on religion when he said:

"One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all."

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."

"What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"

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

Early Christianity got into the economics of military dictatorship. "A double handful of food for a day's work, but the rich get no end of olive oil and wine." Some value was seen in fraud under a brutal military dictatorship. "Take this tablet, quickly, and write 70."

Judaism got into the idea that not even a king is above a common law. That's the entire idea of reading the law to all of the assembled men every sabbath day. This presentation of the law to all was a check and balance on unbridled power, a root of modern democracy.

The practice of nonviolence has roots in the New Testament. "If a soldier requires you to carry his pack a mile, carry it two." This tactic causes no end of grief to the Roman legal system, which specifies that a soldier can make a non-soldier carry his pack one mile. More outre is "If any man sues you at law for your coat, give him your underwear too and go naked." Apparently the Roman court system was widely reviled by the Jews.

The inclusive community-building aspects of Christianity may be tied up with the industrial revolution.

I happen to believe in hands-on and hands-off energy healing. This New Testament inspired spiritual belief is penetrating modern American hospitals through the nurses associations, despite the fact that the practice enrages nontheists. It's statistically very effective (and almost undetectable by the doctors and administrators) in the preemie wards. "What? I was just holding the baby, and then she got better."

Meditation is cool. It cools the mind. It also helps to trigger spiritual experiences. It's at the core of most theistic beliefs.

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

In the Beginning, while we were gaping at the skies in our awe over the World and Everything, the less awed pragmatists in quest for wealth and power explained to us the Unexplainable. They maintained and polished their skills through generations, built instruments needed for their self-perpetuation, joined other similar forces, gave us all Answers to deprive us and our children of bread and Questions.

That is God: His Past, His Today, and our future if we don't get back to gaping at the skies.

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

He she or it or neither. God is an invention to cure human weakness and lack of knowledge and control of their environment. The search for purpose is futile. There is none. We simply exist, grow, and die and the species will eventually vanish. End of story.

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

I believe in God. My experience leads me to do so. I asked God for things, they happened next morning. Not all the time, of course. There is order and chaos in this world. The chaos does not need an explanation, the order does.
I am overwhelmed by the birth of a baby, life from nothing. And by death, after a very full life. It is hard to think that when we die, it is over.
I am overwhelmed by beauty: of mountains and seas and fish and birds.
I am overwhelmed by love, by motherhood, by mercy, by knowledge.
It is difficult to think we are the smartest beings. We are so stupid.
Can you explain love? Life? Death? Only faith provides some answers.
God is an experience of the mind, the heart, the senses.
Most believers would agree with me. I do not know why they are not part of this discussion. I like this article. It makes people think.

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

"Muddled" is the only way I can describe this article. I've tried to find other words but this is the one I return to. I read parts of it several times and they still make little or no sense to me. Although I was unable to read them all, I found many of the comments far better, clearer and more interesting than the article itself.

I am a life long agnostic. I think that it's possible to study the psychological nature of belief without having to first determine whether the object of that belief does or doesn't exist. In fact, I think it could be argued that it is immaterial whether the object does or doesn't exist. I found his opinion on this issue to be unsupportable.

Such things as the possible existence of one or more supreme beings, and what happens to us after death (apart from physical decay), are unknowable. Believers and atheists both claim to know the truth. I find both positions arrogant and full of hubris. Neither side can offer proof. Both believe in things they can't possibly know. They are two sides of the same coin. They are so sure, so certain. Agnostics make no such claims. We can tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity.

As for who or what created the universe and all in it, I really don't give a damn! It's here, we're here, it's wonderful and we should appreciate it and abandon the silly fairy tales. I get all the feelings of awe and spiritual inspiration I require from appreciation of nature. I can't understand why anything more is needed nor how anything could be more worthy of reverence. If there is a divinity then the physical world would be the manifestation of it, to my way of thinking. I guess you could say that Mother Earth is my "religion" and secular Humanism provides my moral code. I do not need or want human-created religion. It has nothing to offer me.

Religion has been used by some human beings to control other human beings throughout history. As such it is nothing more than a political entity, an enabler of despots. And at least the big three Abraham-based religions are mostly excuses and frameworks for patriarchal dominance.

As an amateur artist I found some of the comments regarding art and creativity to be quite interesting.

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

I am 74 years old. -- My grandfather at the age of 75 told me that there will always be this silly idea about there being a god. Apparently his father also passed on this truism. Why do we continue on with this childish fairy tale. Will someone step up and tell the world that the whole religious thing is a completely hollow, empty chalice and furthermore, as the world - our planet is being consumed by religiously led over population, religiously led wars, and a religiously led consumerism that tells the followers it is a god given right to take whatever is at hand and do not care that someone with need might follow..

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

I have for a long time sensed, perhaps murkily and very imperceptibly, kind of those "quite can't put your finger on" kind of feelings, that there has been a steadily strengthening curious dialectic struggle slowly growing up in the West that I, at least, believe to have originated in that great Split, that great Trauma of the 1600's or so known loosely as "the Reformation". It has slowly diffused outwardly into every nook and cranny of our lives and by now has come to be represented more as that "culture war" or "civilizational strife" that is threatening ever more intensely as minutes tick by to rend and rip and explode all of our relationships from individual, social and species wide.

I think splitting the atom and Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure didn't help; I see there another trauma we've yet dimly to become aware of in those implications regarding Splits, and "Schizzes" and Bi-polarisms as Deleuze-Guattari might have remarked.

I think there's a Battle of the Middle Ages vs Modernity. It's a deadly serious battle and there's life-and-death commitments on both sides -- waaay up High in places of Theology and Philosophy all the way down to debates at bars, saloons, coffee-houses and even "kitchen tables" all across the planet. Themes such as this one about God, about Earthly Authority, about Law, about Order, about Humanism and Secularism, etc. etc. etc. have been intensifying and are becoming ever so strident.

Who launched this Grand, "All-or Nothing" Battle, Struggle, Dialectic?? One can detect in several areas of culture and society a kind of determined effort almost as if there is a desire to mold the youth and newer generations in a complete erasure of circa 1650-Present and inculcate them with modes of living and thinking that are eerily similar to mores, codes and manners of older, Feudal and Medieval times. Dungeons and Dragons; Chivalry, Princesses and Castles and mighty Kings. It's palpable. And it has spread into all areas of the planet; but I think it un-mistakably originated in what we call "The West" and "Western Values". From the barely gilded Monastic Cells of France and England came the "Post-Modern Turn(s)" and the insertion of Language, Linguistics and Codes into a position of centrality in all kinds of cultural theories and debates. The Book, the Word became once again primary over the Phenomenon, the Act, the Event.

In the highest echelons of societies, some individuals or groups stand with their feet deeply in Tradition; other individuals or groups stand firmly in Enlightenment and Progress. All over the planet they are gathering armies and followers (each of us 'below' them). That's how Wars of Religion always begin-- whispers in the ear.

It's their Grand Game - theologians and theanthropists all. Let them play it. Let's get on with building us a better world.

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

Pretty flawed article, in many ways, but great discussion.

I don't have time to add my own opinion to the mix this morning, but I'm delighted to see an unusually thoughtful variety of positions expressed. & expressed well, regardless of individual dogmatic leanings, or lack thereof. Maximal exploration, minimal ranting!

This is the sort of argument that benefits us all, no matter where we come down on the spectrum.

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

Wicca is not only NOT nontheistic in origin, it's duotheistic, or sometimes polytheistic in origin. An Atheist Wiccan? Doesn't make much sense. Gardner's premise for Wicca was that the very idea of Witchcraft religion was connection to the Gods. The Principles of Wiccan Belief also state this. While some may view their deities to be pantheistic, none (to my knowledge) are atheists.

If you wanted to do occult work and energy work, you don't have to be Wiccan. You are probably just confusing Occultists like Chaos Magicians, Laveyan Satanists and the like of being Wiccans.

The fact checker missed a big on on this.

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

Dear God,

This is my 5th annual letter to you- a tradition I have come to really look forward to.

I have noticed after previous open letters to you that many of my good friends and family ask me if you have ever written back to me?

Well, God, I inwardly smile and say to them and myself that it doesn't really matter if you haven't written back yet at all? I figured out a long time ago, God, that what really matters is that I live my life on this earthly planet believing that you MIGHT answer me someday? That's the secret for the good life.

Anyway let me bring you up to date. Just when I thought things could not get much worse on planet earth-wouldn't you know it- they did. Most of us are very scared about so many things to the point that some of us have become numb. Many of us also are increasingly feeling helpless about all that is happening around us.

Some say that this sense of helplessness is why we - man- "invented" you?

But I know better, God. I know that mature people did not "invent" you out of fear. Rather they came to know you through the compelling undeniable feeling of gratitude. They are grateful to you, God, for the miracle of life itself, for the love of our families and the loyalty of our friends, for the unfathomable, ever present, abundant beauty and bounty of the natural world and the universe, and for the beautiful artistic creations and incredible technical inventions of man here on earth.

Despite all the very real suffering on this planet, which is still with us, God, many of us are grateful for the acts of heroism and kindness that we observe in many of our fellow human beings. These acts and our attitude of gratitude inspire us to go on.

So God- no matter how tough times get down here, I for one, remain grateful for your many gifts, the comfort that I feel by your eternal presence, and of course for your unconditional love. Thank you God- from the bottom of my heart.

As usual I say in these letters that I look forward to meeting and being with you someday but again please- no rush. I have a bit more work to do here. If however if you can spare a few minutes my e-mail address is ralippin@aol.com assuming you might use these truly miraculous devices we call computers?

Please Take Care.

Love,

Rick Lippin
2008

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

"Delusion is, by definition, dysfunctional"?
I do not know a source for a definition that includes that.
Leaving aside the existence of God for a more investigable question, what about the existence of the self? Some religions (and some psychological theories) assert an absolute self, often called a soul or atman, and sometimes seen as eternal. Descartes saw it as a starting point, as though "I think" says more about "I" than "it is raining" says about "it". Buddhism regards it as a delusion that must be shed for complete enlightenment, but does not deny that it is a useful delusion in ordinary life. (Useful to, of course, our delusory selves.)
The beliefs that one will become a great actor or athlete, that one's novel will be read, or that one's startup will reach IPO, are statistically delusions. The vast majority who believe these, fail. But the world would be sadly different without them.
Perhaps Larry Beinhart simply has a different idea of "functional" from mine.

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

willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both, able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?

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

For Larry Beinhart, AlterNet 20.12.08

Answer to your question: Why won't God make himself clear?

God makes himself clear through saints, gurus, etc. but only to people who are interested enough. Most people are mainly interested in money, sex, relations, children, sports, TV, etc. and not interested or only superficially interested in God.

Read the Wikipedia biographies of Sivananda, Vivekandanda, Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yikteswar and Yogananda. God made himself crystal clear through them. How many Americans have even ever heard their names? Have you, Mr. Larry Beinhart?

Read "The Second Coming of Jesus the Christ", by Paramahansa Yogananda, then you will understand the bible for the first time.

http://www.yogananda-srf.org/scoc/index.html

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

There are are many interesting fables and teachings in Freemasonry and encyclopedias.

I read something about the triad of ideas (liberty, equality, fraternity) being important freemasonic ideals and that many of the leaders of the Enlightenment and founders of world revolutions were masons, including leaders and financiers of the French and American revolutions.

Can anyone tell me if the teachings and traditons of Freemasonry are essentially theistic, atheistic, agnostic? It has been suggested that their political intrigues are essentially Hegelian, backing both all sides of revolutions to maintain power over the resulting new synthesis of the moment.

Finally, why does Freemasonry cap it's illustrious pedagogy in the apparent worship of a three-headed spider? What is the significance of the three heads: one of a man, a cat, and a frog, and the body of a spider?

Is Freemasonry essentially a religion based on ancient texts and polytheism, and bent on Hegelian world revolution in order to establish a pharonic global culture of the "Old Traditions", ie, Masonic Power?

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

You can break God down into five basic categories. One and only one of these is true unless our brains are simply not structured to conceive such things properly and that may be the case.

1) God exists, is omnipotent and benevolent toward mankind. This one is easily refuted because if God had the power and the will to stop suffering then it would. Believers refute this by saying suffering is necessary to awaken belief but what about the suffering of people that already believe?

2) God exists, is not omnipotent and benevolent toward mankind. This one could be true. God might want to help us but simply cannot. Maybe God is still evolving as well. I have no reason to think it wouldn't be.

3) God exists, is omnipotent and not benevolent toward mankind. If God wants or allows us to suffer then God does not love us because it could have prevented it by not creating us or by not allowing evolution to evolve us into being. It makes no sense to create a lesser being and then judge them when you already know exactly what they're going to do.

4) God exists and is neither omnipotent nor benevolent toward mankind. This could be what we might now consider a highly advanced alien species that is very powerful but not omnipotent. They certainly wouldn't care about our less advanced society given our propensity for violence and other immoral behavior.

5) God does not exist and man simply cannot comprehend that the universe has always existed with no creator. I lean toward the nonexistence of a sentient higher power. Pantheism works for me.

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

As to the other questions by Larry Beinhart:

 Why does God give different rules to different people?

God gives different social rules to different cultures in different times in history with different social systems, but always the same 10 universal commandments. God does not give different rules, but people misunderstand and misinterpret the saints words after they die. 90 % of Christian doctrine was developped by “scholars” with the same scientific knowledge as today’s children. Jesus went to India and learned yhoga and meditation from 14 to 29 year old and many things in the bible refer to meditatin. “In the enjoyment of the Lord I die every day” and “Be still and know I am God are references to “Samadhi” and meditation. How could Christian scholars understand and interpret this?

 Why is it that the culture someone is born into is, far and away, the most important determinant of which revelation they believe in?

If that is the only culture one knows how can it be different? Many times you either accept official beliefs or are isolated or persecuted.

 Is there a way to sort out The Truth?

Yes, but it takes an effort and few are willing to make that effort. Jesus said “Knock and the door will open”, but most do not knock long enough. Jesus also said “Whoever loves his wife and sons more than Me is not worth of Me”. How many people love god more than their wife and children?

 If a new prophet arrives tomorrow -- and they do arrive with great regularity -- how can we say that the new revelation is not the true revelation?

If we knew everything without effort creation would be useless. If it was evident who are the true ones and who are not, then God’s game creation and spiritual evolution would be impossible. Do you start a thriller in the last page to know who was the killer?

It is all a game, the Game of God Universal Soul) with individual souls. The game has been known and called "Lila" in the East for thousands of years.

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

Here are the questions we have to ask from the atheist position.

* If God doesn't exist, why do so many people believe in him?
* If God doesn't exist, why are spiritual practices and religion among the human universals, things that exist in all human societies?

end of quote.

Hey thanks for essentially repeating the question eh..


Maybe because human beings are stongly inclined to ask for help even when there is nobody around to listen or help ?

Maybe because having a supernatural entity telling you what to do and when without ever saying the why takes a big weight off weak & lazy minds (and ''god'' knows there are a lot of 'em) ?

Maybe because religion has been a powerful mean of controlling the masses (and creating/hoarding riches) and as a society we need it, thus everyone has been enforcing it, inconsciously ?

Maybe because it gives us a way to comfort and give ourselves the illusion of being ''in control'', its not easy to accept the universe randomness & infiniteness ye know ?

I for myself, only wonder why there is no God or prophet that ever spoke of dinosaurs or viruses or tobacco, or why every religion is so centered on its own culture, like bouddha talking about how he was reincarnated into white tigers (and not lions or seals) and Mahomet using Mecca's patron deity (his father, who was a pagan was called Abd'Allah LOL) or every Old World religion not even mentioning the continent we live in right now and its numerous people.

And how do you deal with people who were never confronted with the ''true'' religions ? Do they go to Hell or Paradise ?

I'm also puzzled by the fact that despite God creating me, and knowing what I'm gonna do, He still gotta wait to see and then judge me, not even sharing the blame for it, think about it this way, you make a bomb, put it in some place, set it and then leave knowing its gonna kill a lot of people (Hitler for example) yet you're not guilty ye say ? Oh, or is it my will only when I do evil things but when I do good things its his Will (thx again Yehova) ??

But above everything else, I wonder if God, being the Omnipotent deity he is, could create a rock he cant lift ?? Or a world in which he doesn't exist ?

I mean, gimme a break and keep the mental shackles if that's what you want, you silly minds...

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

You make a comment that is innacurate, in my opinion--that believers are delusional, and that being delusional is dysfunctional. Therefore, you imply that believers should be less happy than nonbelievers, who presumably are not delusional, and therefore (presumably) not dysfunctional!

This makes no sense. And I will tell you why. As a practicing therapist for 35 years, I can truly say that some of my "happpiest" patients have been those I would say are the most delusional! Some of them think that God loves them the best and has "special" plans for them. The list goes on and on. Of course, it is true that some delusional people are paranoid, angry and very unhappy. But they, in my experience, are in the minority.

You also make the presumption that nonbelievers are functional because they are not delusional! This is so not true! Good functioning has very little to do with being a nonbeliever! In fact, I have worked with many nonbelievers who are depressed, and who wish they COULD believe--but know that the idea of an all-powerful God is a delusion.

Interesting conundrum, eh?

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

While I do not agree with organized religion, none is just as dangerous. Case in point, Hitler.

Faith is not religion and religion is not God. Religion will put you in Hell, then again, so will disbelief in the Creator.

Destruction of man's connection with God (by whatever name you call Him) has, is, and will always be evil's main goal. From evolution we get Eugenics, Hitler was only one of a few that endorsed and practiced it. Add to him planned parenthood and of course Bill & Melinda Gates. Then again, Melinda is a Catholic with Bill is an Athiest- wait, theres a difference?

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

in the spirit of schoolyard gamesmanship, let me assert "god +1" (exactly as one would yell out "infinity + 1!") just because there isn't "something" that we can put a name on, does not prove the existence of that one, nothing-beyond-this thing. just naming something limits its boundaries. or else i haven't had enough caffeine yet this morning.

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

...... said just about everything to be said on this matter. "Our ignorance is God. What we know is science."

~Rev. El
Pastor, WVCSR

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

What a redundant treatise masquerading as intellectual inquiry. When all else fails simply repeat Judge Judy which is very fitting for this article [treatise]. "If it doesn't make sense it isn't true."

http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html

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

Answer is found in the book by Mathew Alper, "The God Part of the Brain."

In essence he makes the scientific case for a biological reason that relates to the need for a survival mechanism. A mechanism that allows for the reasoning human to rationalize that there is someone to turn to when the situation is dire and/or your are about to die. Since humans are apparently the only animal that can perceive the concept of death, we need this concept of a god to help us cope with this fear.

That all said and understood in a modern world, this mechanism is archaic and should and will go the route of the appendix.

On a side note I take issue with the term atheist in the first place. It is a term that dignifies what it denies. We do not have a term for people that do not believe in ghosts or Santa. It is a term that is was created by the "good" Christians to label, isolate and persecute.

I am a rational person that will listen to any evidence for the existence of anything, including a ghost, god or Jesus. But until that evidence exists, I am not going to waste one minute, one dollar, on it.

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

I have long thought that God really doesn't care whether we live or die (physically). Because it knows that what we truly are can never be hurt nor die. God lets things be. We however always look at ourselves as extremely important and worth saving. There is nothing to save we are eternal beings and will be ...... well, eternally.

In the larger scheme of things we are fairly insignificant.

We do not like that idea.

Enjoy

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

I personally do not believe in God. I think John Lennon said it best when he said, "God is a concept, by which we measure our pain." God is a tool invented by people to explain the unexplainable. Religion can be looked at as a thumb. But instead of following the direction the thumb points, they choose to suck on it. They try to manipulate the thumb for their own agenda. That is where religion loses its validity and becomes immoral and unjustified.

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

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Some say once you're gone you're gone forever, and some say you're gonna come back.
Some say you rest in the arms of the Saviour if in sinful ways you lack.
Some say that they're comin' back in a garden, bunch of carrots and little sweet peas.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Some say they're goin' to a place called Glory and I ain't saying it ain't a fact.
But I've heard that I'm on the road to purgatory and I don't like the sound of that.
Well, I believe in love and I live my life accordingly.
But I choose to let the mystery be.

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

--- Iris DeMent

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

I grew up in an independent Eastern European communist country. Unlike the Soviet Block system, we *had* the freedom of religion - there were many, many churches and places of worship around, mostly Christian Orthodox & Catholic, some Muslim.

The major difference was simply that there was a COMPLETE separation of church and state. Any country in which a religious official is a part of President's inauguration, which has "In God we trust" on legal tender, and in which churches don't pay taxes cannot claim the separation of church and government.

Anyway - growing up in what you'd call an atheist country simply meant that I was not pressured to choose any religion, and I didn't. Most of my generation didn't - it was mostly the old and/or uneducated people who believed and went to church, so for a teen, religion was seen as something "uncool".

In my family, personal belief in god simply never came up. We didn't feel the need to believe, I guess. I enjoyed discussing religions with my father, as a part of our philosophical discussions that ranged all over the world beliefs, but I was never told that the Christian (or communist!) belief system is somehow more true than the ancient Greek or Hindu. (As an aside, I was never taught to believe in Santa Claus either :-).)

I am a relaxed atheist, now mostly call myself agnostic (I don't know, I don't think so, I don't really care). As such, I'd like to take up one of the Atheist questions in this article -

"If God doesn't exist, why are spiritual practices and religion among the human universals, things that exist in all human societies?"

-Religion is a fantastic tool of societal control. (If it didn't exist, someone would invent it. Oh wait. They did!) From the earliest days, rulers claimed either a divine lineage or the divine right to rule. After all, who's gonna rebel against a living god, or a god's descendant when you risk a magical retribution? Plus, all the unpopular rules come from "above", not from the current rulers - we use this even in our workplace today (sorry, I'd love to give you that discount, but my manager will fire me if I do).

-We as a specie need explanations. This is probably what separates us the most from other species. If we can't figure one out, we have to make it up, act of god for example (you can see this in our attitude towards disease too - if someone gets sick, it's their fault for doing something that made them sick, like not exercising enough... this way, the disease will pass *us* by if we do everything right). This need for explanation is wonderful; it made us discover things, develop sciences & get where we are now, but it's frustrating enough when we don't know the answers (or there simply aren't any), that we create them.

-Someone has mentioned our need of parents. This makes sense too. Parents are there to protect us, tell us what is right and wrong. Very comforting to give up all that responsibility of deciding for ourselves, even if we have to make up the uber-parent in the sky.

-Kids and teenagers don't have a concept of personal old age and death. In the same way, adults have a hard time imagining not existing. This is such a difficult concept that we tend to make up a continuation of existence after death, ie. religious stories of heaven, hell, limbo or reincarnation. Maybe the religion was created when we became aware of the passing of time and ourselves. We can't avoid dying, but we can tell ourselves a story about it that's not as scary as the reality?

All of these points are based on our experience as members of human specie, based on biology and the fact that we're social animals that we all share. Therefore, it makes sense that all societies tend to contain some basic shared elements, such as the invention of religion.

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

The section about atheism is simply false. Nations like Sweden and Denmark which are among the happiest o Earth are actually atheistic nations (the U.S is the most depressed.) While a majority of their citizens identify as Christians, it's actually what author Phil Zuckerman calls "cultural religion," where they don't actually believe in Gods, heaven, hell etc. These nations also enjoy lower violent crime rates, higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates, etc. They are much healthier nations. Check out his book, "Society w/ out God."

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

I'll try to keep this simple, as I've been hitting the sacramental wine a bit hard tonight. But, that said -

I think you make two basic mistakes in your article. First, you oversimplify the issues: for example, Hinduism overall is really not polytheistic but henotheistic, a much more fascinating and subtle blend of polytheism and monotheism that recognizes the shifting nature of reality. Far more glaring to me, though, is your utter exclusion of two types of faith (one of which I belong to): the syncretic and the pantheistic.
How can you talk about atheism without discussing its true polar opposite, pantheism? Belief in no god versus the belief in everything as god.

Secondly, you misrepresent atheism. As one raised proudly atheist, I feel pretty comfortable saying that nonreligious atheism (that is, atheism outside of Buddhism or such) is explicitly about rejecting the idea of God, gods, or otherworldly matters. Atheists often cherry-pick their evidence just as egregiously as a lifelong Pentecostal. It is not, as such, the "best" way to understand the divine, any more than any revelatory religion is. Both are expressions of faith. The far more obvious and reasonable position, at least to this alcohol-soaked pantheist, is to start with an open and clear mind, devoid of acceptance or rejection, and with a willingness to change as new thoughts and experiences make themselves known.

But maybe I'm being silly.

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

This is getting exhausting. I don't question people's beliefs and I respect everyone's privacy. I can't be expected to make a study of the endless groups of people who can't just get on with their lives without alot of special attention. In return I don't expect anyone to cater to my beliefs or lifestyle. No matter what we believe or don't believe, it's time to grow up. Thanks, ANNA

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