Hey, if you can prove a god's existence, I'd like to hear about it. Until then, I'd rather not.

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

Great. Another journalist decides he's going to "do this" topic.

My take on religion is that we all have one - it's our understanding of the premises for the story we see ourselves inhabiting. It's the understanding we have, for being motivated to behave how we do.

A new theology - it's a good topic to address, which I think is overdue and badly needed. But this treatment of a "radical religion" was about as middle-of-the-road tasteless bland as I can stomach.

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

I read this twice and can't make heads or tails of it. We're supposed to have "theology" but never mind if we really believe any of it? How's that gonna help?

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

Hm.

Seems to me like humans did arise.
If that can alone can be agreed upon by all, at least, excellent.
From whatever humans sprang from, may be the subject of religion and thus it's origin, in my humble opinion.
If we may agree Asquared plus Bsquared equals Csquared, I would ask if it's a human construct -or a human concept. -Or a human perseption. -Or a human conceit...

...There is a school of thought that posits certain products of Earth had great consequences upon us evolutionarily. Pivotal consequences, fundamentally and intrinsically transcendant even. It's a broad school of thought, but generally undiscussed in it's entirety. I am, of course, speaking of entheogens.

I might suggest one see http://www.matrixmasters.net/blogs/

or http://egodeath.com

Or read Food Of The Gods, by Terence McKenna.

Or none of the above, for my point is simply that religion began not only our creation, but our self-awareness. Religion is no more a human creation than the information ayahuasca imparts, or the image of the horizon atop the ocean's water. It is simply the name we use for the subject of it, just like Horizon. Whether we believe the world to be round or flat is another matter. The flat-earther's argument is immaterial to most. Most needn't go to outer space to see the round Earth. Some do.

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

I think I get at what the author is trying to say, that basically things are rather messed up and we should all work together regardless of our religious differences to try and make things better.

However this article isn't a case of putting the cart before the horse, its a case of making the cart into a mountain, or a horse coming from a mound.....

The problems aren't about being religious or secular. Yes certain religious and secular views (with associated world views) are important and do set recognisable trends in place (such as the Christian idea of Armageddon) but really they are window dressing, so worrying and fussing over them isn't going to change anything.

Actually it may well make things worse because it just puts peoples backs up.

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

One day we will have to wake up to the fact that cooperation, communication and kindness are not simply words but the ONLY effective way to sort out this mess. All else leads to pain and death.

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

One day we will have to wake up to the fact that cooperation, communication and kindness are not simply words but the ONLY effective way to sort out this mess. All else leads to pain and death.

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

...because there's nothing else to be.

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

...this is a bunch of crap.

"To imagine a just and sustainable world, we need not just a politics but a theology that can help us face the delusional arrogance and disastrous self-indulgence of humans, especially we humans of the modern industrial era."

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

You dont need religion to do the right thing. We have the option in this country to pursue any philosophy we choose... but to say you need GOD to make the right decision is kinda weak.

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

A bit of thinking and a small quantity of elementary mathematics shows clearly the Solution. What theology we need.

Axiom: "progress in religion is measured by the decrease of the number of gods"
Important steps - monotheism (5 main variants) zerotheims (i.e. atheism) - that is not successful enough because it lacks the life-organizer
function of religion- and "they" have no celebrations.
The next natural step is: NEGATHEISM
the first religion with a number of NEGATIVE GODS.
As my late friend, Arthur C. Clarke used to say: "It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him."
Yes, that is negatheism -Gods have to be created from and by humans- not an easy task- I think it will need at least 5 generations.

For the time given, Negatheism is not understood and therefore it did not become a meme- but there is no other rational theology possible for a human future.
Join Negatheism!

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

by an angel. The angel told me to go forth and create my own religion, Teelism I've decided to call it.

As a Teelist, I am not allowed to speak to women who cover their faces. I'm only allowed to work on Mondays and Wednesdays. I'm not allowed to pay taxes. The first Saturday of every month I have to sacrifice a rabbit in public with my bare hands. This is to protect me from the werewolves the angel assured me are real. I'm not allowed to wear blue, black or grey clothes as this offends my God. 7 times per day I have to scream as loud as I can until I feel the demons and bad spirits have left my body fully. I have to drink a small amount a sacred spirits before driving a vehicle.

The angel visits me frequently now, telling me more about what I can and cannot do so this religion is expanding. To join is easy, you just swear yourself a Teelist and you are one. No ceremonies needed. Shortly after the angel might just visit you too. Now I'm going to start lobbying for legislation to support my lifestyle and beliefs.

What, sorry? Prove it? Prove what, this is a faith-based issue friend. Are you trying to persecute my beliefs?

Oh, last night the angel said I can't leave my house until 10am. The holy ghost will be offended by it.

Just about to call the boss and tell him I'll be coming in late from now on.......

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

Over the years I've enjoyed Dr. Jensen's provocative, thought provoking essays on white privilege and race relations. Yet starting in 2006 Dr. Jensen started writing a series of essays justifying his joining a local Presbyterian church in Austin, TX even though, at the time, he was a self-proclaimed atheist.

I don't think Dr. Jensen was all that comfortable being an atheist all along. I've noticed here of late he has become obsessed with pornography being the root of all evils in American life and politics.

I imagine whenever we see the good doctor next he will be wearing a hair shirt, sack cloth and ashes.

Oh, and one last caveat, Dr. Jensen now stands with one foot over the abyss of reaction. After all the Presbyterian Church nurtured one of the patriarchs of modern American religious fundamentalism, R.J. Rushdoony, founder of Christian Reconstructionism or Dominionism;the theological underpinning of the religious right's attempt to mold American civil law in accordance with "Biblical Scripture."

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

Religion is never the answer. Religion is a lie that keeps the poor from rising up and killing their oppressor.

The main tenet of religion is male supremacy and misogyny.

It is nothing but superstition based stupidity and the main problem with monotheism is that it either has way too many gods or way too few.

If one is going to follow magical thinking then one is better off with lots of gods and goddesses than with one patriarchal invisible sky daddy.

"Religion is for weak minded people." Jessie Ventura.

No gods, no masters.

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

Religious discussions turn my stomach...

But, in answer to the author's question about religion saving anyone one has only to look at previous examples like Ted Haggard for the answer... Its time to turn the page on ANY Organized Religion as far as I'm concerned...

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

This is even more important than our poor creation. How interesting! It seems to me that all these comments refer to one solidly stupid assessment. Evolution is the only possible way that there could have been any development in the world.

There is NO solid basis for evolution. It can not and has not ever been proved. With all the science we have, we can not create life. We claim often that we are on the very brink of doing this wonderful thing but always there is a spanner thrown in the works.

We want to claim for ourselves how great and wonderful that we are. We make the claims of all the things that we have created and we want to protect our "designs" forgetting that to create something we had to have a design in the first place but when it comes to "man" or any living animal we are so desperate to maintain that it "just happened".

Give us a break. NOTHING is ever created without a design. It seems that we want to take all the glory for creating God. How infinitismally foolish are we? Of course men have created gods and have been doing it for 1,000s of years. WHY? Simply because we do NOT want to admit that there is a GOD who was not created by man. He claims to have created this world AND man as well as all the other creatures. He gave us the responsibility of looking after the world and the creatures therein but like man in general, we have always had this stupid idea that we know best. Well, just look around at the world in its present state and one can see without a doubt WE have really stuffed it up.

I think that our greatest problem is that we do not want to be dictated to by some GOD. We all want to do it as the song says I DID IT MYYYY WAY. That is how we want to read the Bible. We want to find something to back up our arguments, we do not want to know truth. Well, we get just what we want. Incidently, God made it plain that we are all sinful and in need of salvation. He knows what He is talking about but we do not want to listen to Him. Well, we only get a world that WE deserve. We do not want to follow God because we are indeed extremely sinful both in the way we handle nature and our fellow man. We can never attain righteousness of ourself, only through Christ and certainly NOT through present day religion because it has moved so far away from the Biblical pattern that it is so unpalatable for the thinking person that they reject it totally without really looking to find truth. That is how bad religion has got today. So this guy wants the perfect religion---made by man? You've GOT to be joking.

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

The topic of a need for religion among progressives is a good one. However, the frame of reference is unclear. For example, what is meant by "religion" or "progressives"? Because of the confusion of thought that commonly assumes in our culture that the religious are conservatives, this type of response that progressives need religion implies that the term "progressives" excludes "religion." Perhaps the topic stems from assumptions that are not necessarily true! As journalists, educators, communicators understand, "labels" are both useful for clarity and disinformation. I infer that what the author may have intended to propose was the need for progressives to develop a new paradigm (cosmology), or set of assumptions, that would help unify a community of thinkers and activists. Or, have I missed the point? Please advise.

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

The premise of the argument is absurd.

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

Dr Jensen writes, "...we must remember our place in Creation."

And that would be?

Creation necessitates a Creator.

When one begins one's thesis by stating that there is no Creator (then continues by attempting to define this non-Being) one might want to revisit one's beliefs.

A pastor once said, "I know two things: There is a God -- and it's not me."

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

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a priest, to point out the moral bankruptcy of so much of our culture.

The trouble is, odds are the rocket scientist is being employed by someone who's found a way to make money off of that bankruptcy, and that someone is going to send the guy out to the with "rational" arguments why progress must continue, to manipulate public opinion. Mr. Pocket Protector has his own reasons, he wants to keep up his work, both for profit and intellectual curiosity's sake.

Meanwhile, the priest has been exposed as a hypocrite.

A rational, thinking person will have arguments to use against the flak, but without irrational conviction or the motivation of personal gain, they'll eventually tire (think of the Onion's 2004 story on Liberal Burnout).

What religion and history tell us is that great oppression is relieved by irrational means. "Let my people go, go, go." India. Civil rights.

I'd lay decent odds that when Constantine had his little "in hoc signo vinces" vision, it was less about Christ and more about knowing a good, motivating, propaganda symbol when he saw it.

We aren't fighting epic battles, however, we're just trying to find a good reason not to give in to the urge to say "fuck doing the right thing" and go for the quick profits, harmful as they may be.

Organized religion has been my enemy for some 35 years; now that I'm over it I'm coming back around to it, if only on an intellectual level, for the above reasons.

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

The crux (no pun intended) of the issue isn't religion or no religion. The real issue is America.

That's right! It's all abut US! It really is! Because we are so...freaking...IMPORTANT that it's not funny!

That's why our religion is so self-absorbed and self-indulgent; that's why our atheism is so self-absorbed and self-indulgent; that's why our sexuality is so self-absorbed and self-indulgent; that's why our politics are so self-absorbed and self-indulgent.

Because, by golly, we deserve our self-indulgence.

Wanna see some pictures of my kids?

They're special. Really.

Got a couple hours?

Sure you do,

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

That actually makes sense if you think about it!

RT
Online Privacy when it Counts

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

It ain't hard. Really. Canute had the right idea: go down to the sea and try to stop the tide. Or go down to the riverbank and make the river stop. Hell, you can even go down to the interstate and order the cars to halt.

Me, I just issued an order to the universe: Everyone who posts to AlterNet will henceforth think at least twice before they hit "submit." Didn't work. QED.

Take a look at what motivated the people you most admire, the ones who've worked the greatest changes in this country. They were all serving something greater than themselves. Some called it "God." Some didn't. Some called it "God" and something else as well -- justice or freedom or something like that.

That's all the guy is saying. If you disagree, come up with an alternative. Test it out in real life, and if it works, come tell us about it.

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

from self-indulgence. If people do what makes them happy without harming others, there's nothing else to talk about.

G'bye.

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

Sounds like the author grabbling with his own issues. And nothing is new.

As a sociologist I know that many people need norms. They hold society together. When norms around one issue break down, norms around another issue develop. For instance, we have more sexual freedom, but we have become Puritans around eating. Those who adhere to strict should and should nots of food see their rules as compelling as those who had norms around sex. They don't look at what functions they play (order, unity), they see them as important in themselves.

That this guy thinks we need radical norms that everyone needs to adhere to is the same phenomena. He wants to create a comfortable world for himself held together by the same beliefs he has. What we really need to do is take the next step to a live and let live society.

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

Is fewer people telling us 'what we need'. Differences will always exist. The author's ideas are very far fetched. We are not lab rats or a massive behavioral science experiment. This is the real world pal and I suggest you take a look around. There is no market for your silly ideas. ANNA

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

Robert Jensen talks about the "arrogance" of others and about the "unbending" positions of fundamentalists on both sides, yet he invents a totally preposterous position for which there is not one shred of known evidence. There is no evidence that inanimate matter created life, that the grand universal design created itself or, that intelligent beings of conscious awareness can exist apart from Creative Intelligence. All known evidence indicates the opposite, that nothing ever has or can create and design itself from the top down. To pretend that one "knows" there is no God is the most asinine and arrogant of all positions. Common fairytales like Hansel and Gretel, Goldie Locks and the 3 Bears and the universe sitting on the back of giant turtle are far more evidence-based and credible by comparison.

And then there is the problem of pretending that a modern science and education that has resulted in the American, French and Russian Revolutions leading to massive imperialism and enslavement of the especially Asian masses, Spanish, Philippine, Mexican Wars, WWI, WWII, Korea, Chinese Revolution, continental African, Central and South American wars, Vietnam, Iraq and continuing forward, nuclear, biological and worse weaponry and global mass pollution, can somehow save us from our sins.

And then Mr. Jensen makes the supreme historical blunder of equating God with religions about God, as if because religions are invented by human beings, therefore there is no God. Such 'logic' can be easily refuted by any common truck driver or motel maid, no degrees from a Texas-based or any other university necessary.

Talk about someone who needs to grow up!

Who Would Jesus Bomb?
www.FreedomTracks.com

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

Science is a faith. It has it's cannons and orthodoxy. It hounds it's heretics with the same ferocity and venom as any Inquisition or witch hunt.

It is true that it stands on slightly firmer ground - due to the scientific method - but it ultimately relies on faith in the current theory (M Theory I think is the latest and greatest in cosmology at the moment, having displaced String Theory).

We tend to find whatever it is we believe, whether that be the Higgs Boson or angelic visitors. We all do, in a sense, "create our own reality".

And we tend to block out what doesn't fit our world-view. We tend to ridicule and "pooh-pooh" people who's views are widely divergent from our own. We tend to find people as "reasonable" if their views are close enough to ours.

I believe that we all have within us a "God gene". Whether we enshrine science as the highest good, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Yahwe, or some other deity, it's an inner dynamism that strives for expression. CG Jung called them the archetypes.

A hard-nosed realist can never understand the rapture of a mystical experience. No amount of discussion is going to convince this person that the experience is anything but "subjective".

To the person who has had this experience, it is perfectly obvious. No explaination could really ever really describe it anyhow.

How can you tell somebody what it is "like" when there is nothing like it in our everyday, mundane world? You are essentially describing the sunset to someone born congentitally blind. That blind person is never really going to "get it" without "seeing" it.

Pretty much all religions (including science) are based on somebody's mystical experience. The experience nearly always shows the interconnectedness of all life and the cosmos. The idea that "we are all in this together" is the basis of all of our moral codes in all the various religions.

And that is the thing I get out of this article. Be you a hard-nosed realist, or a "Rapture" awaiting "fundie" or a "Christmas and Easter" kind of Christian, or whatever your faith, we are all in this together. We sink or swim, live or die, prosper or suffer by our collective efforts. We can't afford the greed and carelessness that got us to our current position.

Remember, you are your own Pope. Nobody can speak for God except for you. Whether you "grok it in fullness" or "see through a glass darkly", you see God in your own way. There is no wrong way.

Peace...
Pope Urban XXIII

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

Actually, science is on a whole lot more shakey ground than the responders here pretend. Not very long ago historically, science firmly believed that the earth is both the center of the universe and our solar system. Then along came Copernicus, Galileo and a few dissenters who claimed otherwise. And along came Newton and then along came Einstein to point out why Newton's mechanical universe is not very accurate other than for most earth-based practical applications. Then along came Hubble who claimed science was wrong yet again and that there is more than just one galaxy of stars and now physicists are predicting that the new telescope planned to replace the one named after Hubble will virtually re-write all of what today is believed to be scientific fact.

So there you have it, a modern science and education that is arguably not much more accurate than Ptlomey's earth-centered solar system in comparison to what it doesn't know, which has resulted in American, French, Russian and Maoist revolutions, Massive global imperialsim, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, nuclear, biological and worse weaponry and mass Global pollution, not to mention global mass pollution, to name just a few of it's many sins. Yet, most of those responding here would have us believe this is somehow a vast "age of enlightenment" improvement over the religious Dark Ages.

Talk about the blind leading the blind...

Who Would Jesus Bomb?
www.FreedomTracks.com

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

Worshiping an all good and all powerful Babylonian sky god is one of the worst of self indulgences. The people of the book suffer from endless paranoia and megalomania.

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

Hello Mr. Jensen,

You asked a question at the end of your article, "what kind of theology..." and it stoked a large hornets' nest. People don't want to discuss something they cannot prove, others have their own agendas.

A type of theology runs rampant in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions of what we in the U.S. have grown up with. No matter what one calls it, it is this g-d of Abraham that all 3 major religions believe in.

If one looks at the current administration and what it is trying to accomplish--it leaves no stone unturned. We believe in what can be termed the "Four Pillars" of the ARRA (Recovery Act) in no particualr order: governmental agencies, private industry, nonprofits and faith-based ministries. It is a collaboration of these four plus consumer input that will hopefully, correct our present economic mess and "Reinvest" in what we would consider "Best Practices, Best Goods and Services", to bring back what "Quality" actually meant (see Deming, Shewhart, Juran and other like-minded Quality implementers).

This is a "progressive theology" that should be the dialogue to discuss, not whether g-d exists.

Thanks for your endeavors, we wish you the best in all,

Sincerely,

Ira Reschman
Peopletech
a 501(c)(3)progressive nonprofit
Tampa, FL 33615
ira@peopletech.org

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

The topic is fine as a matter of philosophical and spiritual discourse but to think that any theology or lack thereof will assist in "fixing" our current state of affairs is ridiculous. The simple application of scientific method is the only way to go. How will a belief system help fight Big Ag/Pharma/Mil/Oil?

I love exploring mysteries and unveiling non-ordinary aspects of Self, but only hard work and pragmatic reasoning is going to get us out of this mess.

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

However, while I have enjoyed poking holes and pointing out the weaknesses of his past stuff, I believe he is on the right track here. The problem is he won't stick to it and will just move on to whatever the next topic is that is selling.

Even theologians agree that God is dead or, some temper that as, God has abandoned us. Since religion has been traditionally identified with the defense of a god (except for Buddhism and the death-of-god forms of Christianity) that has been treated as the sine qua non of religion.

In all great world religions, there are those whose conceptions are far more sophisticated. Until someone can popularize those without losing their dependence on undecideables, ambiguities, and aporias, most folks will have no idea what is going on.

The Old Testament contains a message about "the saving remnant," those who are justified in the midst of idolators. Are there enough of such today? Only time will tell.

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

The fastest way to render the current wave of progressivism to banality and ineffectiveness is to shackle it to the very purveyors of so called "morality" that currently have the population tied in knots... (or should I say "nots?") and divided into sniping factions. I think the powers that be, the "elilte", know this and that is why they are so quick to get behind an idea like this and fund it... not because they believe that way but because it gets us all off on some irrelevant tangent and frees them to go along dismantling what remains of the natural world in their sick game to see who will have the "most" at the end.

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

And nobody could possibly have an experience of transcendence and not call it "God."

How about we focus on ETHICS?

You know, like "It's just plain wrong to invade a country that is no threat to us to steal its resources."

Some might take that stand because Jesus told them to turn the other cheek, some because the prophets advised turning swords into plowshares, some because the Prophet (peace be upon him) said "God does not like those who commit aggression," some because the rabbi said that you should engage in the repair of the world, some because the Buddha told them to be compassionate, some because Confucius said that the superior man should seek out other ways of resolving disputes before resorting to war, some because the Rede warns that whatever you do will come back upon you threefold.

Or maybe you figured out that bullying sucks all on your own without any tradition telling you anything. So what? We all got to be on the same ethical page one way or another. Isn't that the important thing?

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

The article begins: to imagine a just and sustainable world, we need not just a politics but a theology that can help us face the delusional arrogance and disastrous self-indulgence of humans, especially we humans of the modern industrial era.

My first thoughts as I waded slowly through the article were (i) we don’t need politics, and (ii) we don’t need religion. So what do we need to create a just and sustainable world, and where might I get the inspiration to answer the question?

I thought of the people I’ve known and interacted with throughout my 63 years. First there was my immediate family, then there were the teachers at the infants, junior and technical schools. Then there were my University teachers.

Finally, there have been the myriad numbers of people I’ve worked with over the past 40 years, mainly in the data processing industries, but which would also include those organisations who use the software I’ve helped to create.

All the people I’ve known have, by and large, had one thing in common – a desire to make our lives better. These would also include civil servants who are employed with local government mainly, such as borough councils and housing authorities.

With few exceptions, all the people I’ve known throughout my life have lived in reasonably comfortable houses, have earned a reasonable amount of money, have reasonably nice cars etc.

Thus, collectively, all the people I’ve know have, and continue to live, a just and reasonable existence, and I would imagine that the same can be said for all those who read this.

So, why is the world as a whole in such a pitiful state?

Someone decided to create an ‘enemy’ so that they could become far wealthier and more powerful than the rest of us. In order to combat the ‘enemy’, the following needed to take place: creation of armies, navies, air forces, secret services, bomb making factories, palaces for the super rich, schemes to suck capital out of the economy, an unequal education system to ensure that enough children suffer inadequate education so they’d have no choice but to do all the crap, menial jobs no one wants to do such as serving in restaurants, dig the roads, go down the sewers, collect the garbage, work as low paid shop assistants, serve in fast food restaurants, put up with having to live in small, uncomfortable houses, be forever short of money and always heavily in debt.

A crap education to ensure they’d be enough recruits into the army who’d be dumb enough to swallow all the propaganda and go out to places like Iraq and Afghanistan to get themselves killed for no good reason.

The role of politics is to ensure this continues. The role of religion is to reinforce the propaganda.

Therefore, let's shoot all the politicians and consign religion to the garbage.

The world can be summed up as:

people (6 billion)--> money --> banks --> money --> super rich.

This is why it doesn’t matter how hard you work or how much you earn. The money always gushes from left to right, and never trickles from right to left. Everywhere you look, people are always poorer than they should be.

It is just unbelievable. If I added up all the money I’ve earned over the past 40 years, it would be monstrous, but somehow the system has always managed to separate me from it, but leaving just enough to keep me above the poverty trap.

Does anyone out there know anyone who has actually got rich, and if so, how did they manage it? Simply working for a living will never make you rich.

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

Must I "believe" so that my cause is heard? For it to make sense?
This belief in the supernatural has been a useful tool in the development of humanity. Now it is obsolete, it has been for a while.
As a former religious person, now atheist (Woke up one day, the gods had become mere statues, and don't come to me with the invisible GOd, been there as well.) I can say confidently:
No, there is no God, we don't need one to explain anything but our insecurities and ignorance.
And NO I won't "believe" in order to be more "coherent". This is a completely absurd idea. WAKE UP already, not having a "theology" doesn't make me worse and you better.

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

that it creates intellectual and moral laziness. It gives people a false platform that either excuses their behavior, based on some ethereal set of principles, or it gives them a false sense of superiority, of having information or knowledge that puts them in a position of divining who is or isn't "worthy" of consideration on any topic.

Religion takes away people's ability to reason due to the rigid constraints inherit in embracing faith as a means of "moral living." Why should one think for oneself when there is a clearly defined "code" one must live by in order to be considered "faithful?"

I trust people who decide for themselves how to morally live their lives, and how they choose to deal with everything and everyone in this world. It's a process that comes from inner struggle, honest questioning, and wisdom and experience -- and it comes from WITHIN.

I don't trust a world-view that is IMPOSED FROM WITHOUT, that requires strict adherence to absolutes, or you are shunned and rejected, judged and ridiculed. Simply for thinking and acting for yourself.

I guess it comes down to the difference between people who have a deep need to be led versus those who don't.

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

richer, of course.

Not to say that the intent was not a noble one at first, by whomever thought of it, but, I suspect, some bullies thought that religion could serve their purpose to keep the poor think they deserve their poverty (as in Asian religion) or the poor hoping for a better life (as in Christian religions). Romans did use religion to their advantage! And many leaders do today! And will!

We do not need a religion. We need new ETHICS! And, if you ask me, limiting the scope and reach of capitalism will go a long way in helping!

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

In expressing my comments, I am well aware that certain materials I will describe are not generally known. This does not mean they are unknown, but rather that as with the early stages of the Copernican Revolution, a modern counter-Revolution (reinserting the Divine scientifically) is underway, but initially not noticed. That said let me come to two crucial beginning points made by Mr. Jensen.

1) humans created religion; religion did not create humans.

This is a mis-statement of the underlying question. For starters, it is a misreading of history. Religious history clear states that religions were inspired in human beings. All such religions have creation stories, and all these stories are similar in that they present human beings as a product of divine creation. The only legitiment question is whether there is evidence that early human beings directly experienced the Divine, following which experiences their religions arose (as stated in their own religious histories). The most important research on this subject has been carried out by Owen Barfield, who describes in his book Speaker's Meaning (and as well in others of his works) what a study of the history of meaning (languages) can tell us about the meaning of history. He unveils in his works a kind of "geological" record of consciousness. This term "geological" is of course a metaphor for the fact that a study of the history of languages reveals that consciousness has changed from one era to the next, and that earlier man clearly did not possess the some kind of consciousness we today possess. Once we enter into such discussions, it becomes evident that ancient man (during what we would call the Age of Myth) did not create religious metaphors as an explanation for the unexplanable in nature (what we falsely assume), but rather he directly experience the Divine, and this then is revealed in the earlest developments of the relevant languages, because language in its "childhood" only gives names to experiences. It is never metaphorical in its "childhood" but only naming. I know this is weak as a description and Barfield must be read carefully in any event, but he makes his case.

The second point made by Jensen is: Inanimate matter created life, life did not create inanimate matter. This is a myth created by natural science which it cannot actually justify. The evidence is right in front of us, but not seen because to accept it is to give up a prescious assumption and go to a dangerous place (it is not all matter in nature, there is spirit as well).
For example, in the development of the human embryo that solid parts only emerge from the living tissue after it has reached a certain stage of development. In geology we can see that the same law applies to the biology of the planet when we note carefully the form structure of minerals. They are all clearly the solidification of something that in the beginning was more fluidic (the geological record is the left behind bones of a more living iteration of the Earth). Of course I can't illuminate the science behind this, or the necessary logical structures, but if one Googles "The Nature Institute" you can begin to view the relevant research.

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

What is more fun, or more interesting, than a good heated debate about what all this is? Why do we need to engage in hostility when it is so much more fun to discuss such things? Is there such a thing as an idea that can be destroyed by violence? It seems to me a matter of superior vs. inferior tools. When stone tools and beaver teeth were replaced by better tools what sane person would return to the obsolete ones for any other reason than to try to re-create a 'traditional' structure? I'm not saying there can never be a use for such re-creations, but limiting knowledge is like trying to contain steam. Something will eventually give. I think it far more interesting and entertaining to have fun, and consider metaphysical concepts than to throw stones. There certainly are forces in this universe which affect us that are somewhat less than materially significant.

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

We are all interdependent on this tiny jewel of life called Earth clinging to the warmth of our only begotten Sun...

That man needs to balance body and mind. That our instincts for survival, territory, dominance, and war do not fit with this interdependence but can be justified and rationalized by concepts such as collateral damage and ideologies that demonize people like accusing them of having WMD's and taking babies out of incubators and leaving them to die. Mindfulness meditation can be useful in balancing our sense of body and emotions with clarity of thought without projected ideological constructs with empathy with out world that can sense situations more wholistically.
That if we cannot stop being at war with our world and between our body of sensuality and mind of morality that represses too much and seeks outlets like war to relieve us of our gloves of civilization we may be the cause of our own extinction.

We need a new geodesic vision of an interdependent world or eco-economic convergence as represented in the yin-yang symbol where individual and whole co-exist. And that recognizes the similarity of DNA in us as brother and sisters and with all life here on Earth.

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

The first step would be to abándon our believe in a Higher Being as pure fiction.
The second step is to understand who and what caused the present situation.
The third step would be the creation of check and balances to correct the present disaster.
President Obama is on the right path but the Republicans who caused most of the present situation will try to stop him whenever and whereever they can in order to continue to enrich themselves on our backs.
If only the worst of them such as Cheney would be put on trial and held responsible for the damage and death they caused.

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

There's nothing new here, other than a new book to shill. Boring...

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

go Buddhist, and cut out the middleman! :D

#@!

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

There is a "liberal"religion that is pro-science, open to exploration of non-dogmatic spirituality, and understanding of how we are all part of the interconnected web of life. Take a look at these principles. I think most progressives could live with this:


There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.


Unitarian Universalism (UU) draws from many sources:

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;

Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

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

What is the point of this article? He kinda flip flops between two things. He likes religion but then doesn't like it and acknowledges that it's made up by man. Then what's the point of this article? He's saying "buck up" and what not to all those who are moderate. Hey guess what? Even some people who are semi-religious don't like to judge because the topic of religion is a sensitive thing. If one grows up a Mormon and speaks to a friend who is agnostic, how is opting out of a conversation of religion weak-willed? Some people can be friends with other people who don't have the same religious background as they do. It's called being tolerant and respectful of others beliefs. Didn't we learn this concept in grade school?

This article does nothing for the topic of religion, whether or not one actually believes in it. The author needs to stop flip flopping from one side to the other and then getting mixed up in a gray area. Pick something and stick to it.

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

This contribution is in response to the remarks of people like Aberdeen and popeurbanxxiii
.
Science is the name we give to the investigation of phenomena. The impact of the results of such investigations, especially in the field of weapons development, has indeed led to a world that is far more dangerous now than ever it was.

However, Man has a choice in whether or not he wishes to pursue certain lines of scientific investigation. Notwithstanding, the truth of nature, of existence, of the construction of our Universe etc, does actually exist.

Whether or not Man wishes to probe and investigate and dissect in order to establish those truths is a choice Man has.

And of course, by Man, we mean the one or two gifted individuals who might be capable and bright enough to unravel the answers in a world population of over 6 billion. Percentage wise, like classical composers, the number is microscopically small.

Man in the shape of privileged and elite minority has a choice in what s/he does. Here’s what the vast majority have no say in whatsoever.

In the world that existed before modern banking systems came into being, Man’s comrades and enemies were the natural world, the elements, other tribes, the sun, the sea, the land, the forest, the animals etc, and a man’s ‘worth’ could be assessed by his individual property, the animals he kept, the number of wives he had, perhaps the number of people s/he’dd killed in battle.

In other words, Man’s relationship with the world in which he lived was clear cut, to which extent every man and woman had the same armour of weapons at his disposal – his personality, his intelligence, his strength both physical and emotional, his staying power.

But then modern banking came along and put an end to Man’s relationship with the natural world. Banking has nothing to do with the natural world. It is an artificial creation, and yet it has been imposed on the world from above such that nearly every single individual on this planet is dependent on it, whether s/he likes it or not.

People can choose to be religious, they can choose to investigate scientific phenomena if they wish. We can also choose to purchase goods based on scientific investigation such as a mobile phone.

But you cannot choose to live without becoming part of the banking system. Banking systems exist for only one reason, and that is to take your money from you. Like the word God, we have been conned into believing that the word investment is something that you might benefit from.

The truth of the matter is – everyone places their money in banks in order that the likes of Citibank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Goldman Sachs, Barclays and all the other pariahs can easily get their hands on it and keep lots of it for themselves.

People are free to ignore the results of scientific investigation if they want to. I am sure that in the decades it took Vodafone and Orange etc to design and manufacture the mobile phone, there were instances of wrong research and development, but eventually they come up with the modern day mobile phone.

All scientific research and development is conducted in ‘closed shops’. Outside of the domains in which this research is being conducted, the world can quite happily continue on its merry way without giving one thought about progress.

But the artificial medium known as money is with us every step of the way from conception to death. Money in the form of the modern banking system never needed to exist; people were quite able to live just and sustainable lives before it ever came into being. But for the vast majority who have little to none of it, it is responsible for more death and misery than anything that science ever constructed.

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

Yet there is and are atheists, agnostics and all thre-is-no- god people who in the moment of despair , quietly in their mind pray:"God, there dear God, please help me!"

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

What this article states is that people need to believe in somthing in order to be able to rise up to today's challenges. In essence, nihilism is slowly hampering out ability to go against the flow no matter how strong. This article does not discuss why this needs to be done, but how. How to replace modern nihilism is not a new topic, being delved into by many others, but most importantly Friedrich Nietzsche.

This is only a part of the book, so there is most likely more support for the arguments. For this website, I will fill in why nihilism needs to be conquered.

When people believe in things in the same way as people believe in religion, hard stances are taken against evil. Hundreds of martyrs of many beliefs and religions can prove this.
Would any current day liberal stop paying taxes to not support wars they do not agree with. Ralph Waldo Emmerson stopped paying taxes and went to jail over his opposition to the Mexican war that was basically stealing the California area from Mexico.

Thomas Aquias said that it is not the punishment but the cause that makes the martyr. This is egotistical nonsense.

To entrench deep faith in a greater good, examples need to be shown. The reason why people devote their lives to the Catholic Church is that Jesus endured the most humiliating, degrading and painful death imaginable (crucifiction) when he could have used his godly powers to push his enemies into hell. Most of the Apostles(people in DaVinci’s Last Supper painting with Jesus) all suffered macabre deaths as well.

People from Martin Luther King to Thomas Moore to Ghandi all lived their beliefs to the highest extreme. If they had lived any less, they would not have been able to do anything.

The “term follow your heart” does no justice to this. Being a trully affirming person is not being weary because of an outside force. It transcends force. It is not something that you can grow out of because you turned thrity and you were not supposed to trust anybody over that age.

Not everybody in transformed by strong belief into a resilient force for change

Ethics are what people follow when they reasonably can. People follow beliefs onto pain, torture, and death.

Today, with Congress completely purchased for a meere $3 billion each year, we need martyrs. Martyrs are people who show they cannot be defeated.

If we had a true martyr today, we would rally together and fight the oppressors, whether they be tyranical autocrats to the thieves on Wall Street. Iran rallied with one. We need one too.

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

The author was either one of my classmates or one that could have been as I believe she/he is tuning into some of the same MIND/information/data in the FACT that WE ALL are very unaware of what's outside our own tiny brain and history of brains, even with the mounds of reading and internet researching and philosopical pondering, which the roots thereof all came from somewhere and it clearly wasn't in essence from the genetic strain we think of ourselves, the product of. And we ain't from space aliens either, though that is closer to the truth than what the religion's and athesits suscribe too, but yet a final trap to present us with the prize but to then see it as a trap, when that mindset sets our own trap rendering us part of this or that illusion and the arrogance that follows itself. And of course I'm thought of as one of the biggest fools on the planet so I have nothing to lose to state my opinion but if anyone paid attention to those who called themselves H.I.M in 1975 - standing for Human Individual Metamorposis and then in 1994 as Total Overcomers Anonymous and then in 1997 Heaven's Gate under the phenomenal leadership of the real Two Witnesses, called Ti and Do, who as their student of 19 years living with them can testify are way above all others in all the religions and all the sciences but who only a tiny, tiny few - perhaps just 24 times 24

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