God, The Ultimate Human Meme - Intrinsic, Integral, or Irrelevant?

[Cleverboy]

A meme consists of any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods and terms such as race, culture, and ethnicity. Memes propagate themselves and can move through a "culture" in a manner similar to the behavior of a virus. As a unit of cultural evolution, a meme in some ways resembles a gene. Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, recounts how and why he coined the term meme to describe how one might extend Darwinian principles to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.

“Fear begets gods.” – Lucretius

“In order to counter this fundamental angst,
humans are wired for God.” – Herbert Benson

“If the brain evolved by natural selection... religious
beliefs must have arisen by the same mechanism.” – E. O. Wilson

A couple of years ago, I wrote a handful of blog entries dealing with some scattered thoughts on religion. I whipped out a big brush and determined to spatter a healthy dose of paint on as many topics as I cared to. Amongst those targets of my philosophical ponderings were:


What is God? (http://weblog.xanga.com/gryphondwb/548651136/what-is-god.html)
Ontology, Determinism, Time Cycles, Fractal Reality, and the Theory of Everything (http://weblog.xanga.com/gryphondwb/552686721/ontology-determinism-time-cycles-fractal-reality-and-the-theory-of-everything.html)
Atheism, Religion, and Causality - Alternative Vector, The World According to IF/THEN (http://weblog.xanga.com/gryphondwb/561125758/alternative-vector-the-world-according-to-ifthen.html)
The Tri-Partitie Universe - An Alternative View of the Trinity (http://weblog.xanga.com/gryphondwb/612298305/beyond-belief-the-tripartite-universe.html)


Much of my repeated conclusions dwelled upon two highly heretical and unsettling premise. The first, that "reality" as we know it, is merely agreement (an ecosystem defined in "The Tri-Partite Universe"). Then secondly, that the God concept... is an evolutionary construct in our species, in part birthed by our fundamental nature as "pattern finding" organisms. Just as a "behavior" is a pattern, so is, on a much more metaphysical level, human thought... the ultimate quest for finding "patterns" in our own perception. Just look at how we decrypt "dreams", and how dreams form in the first place.

At one point, I found myself arguing with one fairly intelligent commenter, on whether or not religion came before philosophy. Whether religion existed as a placeholder for philosophical uncertainty, or whether philosophy in essence attempted to burn away to call of primal pattern-finding that would have us believe that lightning was God.

"Mother is the name for God in the lips and hearts of little children." - William Makepeace Thackeray

Personal and intangible experiences which might seem "above" memes may rather have subconscious roots in memes absorbed during a lifetime, as depth psychology might suggest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Memetic_accounts_of_religion

Memes, I think... amuse me. Whether it is the disturbing fear that robots will overthrow humanity (springing from the very first robot story), or the latest Internet crazy hitting the tubes... I look at it, and I think I see our species struggling to surivive by making ideas spread under the radar of most conscious thinking.

Most people like arguing that somehow GOD or RELIGION is at the root of all the violence and hatred in the world. Instead, I believe that the violence and hatred is already there, and often clings to the GOD meme as a handy and responsive excuse to propagate it. In turn however, the God meme vacillates between inspiring charity (the protection of the weak in the absence of benefit or reward) and prejudice (sectarianism and xenophobia, allowing a specific set of beliefs vie for legitimacy through insular civilization). I end up believing that the "truth" of it, is that we're only still around because of religion.

It doesn't, in fact, always promote "peace"... but it does result in behaviors that result in more often than not... in a successful civilization or society that finds an equilibrium and an ancestral tradition.

What these ends up meaning... I feel, anyway... is that we shouldn't make so much of a fuss about religion when beliefs are not overtly causing harm. On balance, its all part of the giant hampster wheel of a life we call reality.

Isn't it?

~ CB

[iJohnHenry]

No question, God is love.

All the rest is just some useless rhetoric.

[skunk]

I selected "Huh?", since even stating that God does not exist already grants the concept a degree of reality.

As for "I end up believing that the "truth" of it, is that we're only still around because of religion", you might as well assert that this applies to cats and dogs, too. The commonest mistake in our thought-processes is anthropocentric vanity. We are just grubbing about.

[Queso]

All gods were born from misunderstanding of nature, although once the idea had taken root within a social grouping it was easier to attach the society's code of behaviour to the made-up god in order to spread that code's acceptance. Adoption of the same code by the social group led to less discord and increased the likelihood of survival for the whole.

And the ultimate human meme was and still is survival. God is simply tacked onto the side of that as a method of ensuring obedience to a set of rules.

[skunk]

God is simply tacked onto the side of that as a method of ensuring obedience to a set of rules.There is nothing to suggest that the prospects for survival are affected one way or the other by the notional acceptance of religious taboos.

[Queso]

There is nothing to suggest that the prospects for survival are affected one way or the other by the notional acceptance of religious taboos.
No, but several thousand years ago (and at times since) having everyone possessing the same idea of right and wrong would most definitely have been an advantage in producing a stable society, and stability usually increases the likelihood of survival quite dramatically.

[skunk]

No, but several thousand years ago (and at times since) having everyone possessing the same idea of right and wrong would most definitely have been an advantage in producing a stable society, and stability usually increases the likelihood of survival quite dramatically.You are implying that ideas of right and wrong are derived from religion, which is entirely at odds with your position as stated elsewhere.

[Queso]

You are implying that ideas of right and wrong are derived from religion, which is entirely at odds with your position as stated elsewhere.
No, I am arguing that religion was developed as a method of applying ideas of right and wrong, one which I believe is now superseded.

[obeygiant]

I picked "huh?" because it was the closest to "doesn't care".

[skunk]

I picked "huh?" because it was the closest to "doesn't care".If you don't care, why post? :confused:

[floyde]

God is the fear of death and the way to cope with the fact that "everything wont necessarily be ok". I think it is time for humanity to grow up, fairy tales can be harmful when believed by adults.

Most people like arguing that somehow GOD or RELIGION is at the root of all the violence and hatred in the world. Instead, I believe that the violence and hatred is already there, and often clings to the GOD meme as a handy and responsive excuse to propagate it. In turn however, the God meme vacillates between inspiring charity (the protection of the weak in the absence of benefit or reward) and prejudice (sectarianism and xenophobia, allowing a specific set of beliefs vie for legitimacy through insular civilization). I end up believing that the "truth" of it, is that we're only still around because of religion.

It doesn't, in fact, always promote "peace"... but it does result in behaviors that result in more often than not... in a successful civilization or society that finds an equilibrium and an ancestral tradition.

What these ends up meaning... I feel, anyway... is that we shouldn't make so much of a fuss about religion when beliefs are not overtly causing harm. On balance, its all part of the giant hampster wheel of a life we call reality.

Isn't it?

I disagree with you here. Religion is obviously not the root of all evil, but I do think it's a crutch, and a dangerous one at that. I think religion was beneficial for the establishment of societies on the earlier stages of our species, but that's only because it might have been too much to ask for primitive men to come up with something better.

It is much different these days. We HAVE the ability to come up with a better foundation for our society. Evil will still exist without religion, but at least we might be able to rid ourselves of the harmful segregation and the unnecessary creation of several groups or tribes. We are one species, and we should look after each other, and we should also look after our fellow living creatures (which are often claimed to be "inferior" by religion). Religion prevents us from coming up with economic/political systems that work for everyone, that is, the entire human species.

I heard this from a Dawkings documentary, and I think it's something important to think about: (I don't remember it 100%)
"There are bad people who do bad things and good people who do good things, but it's only with religion that you see good people doing bad things"

[skunk]

I think religion was beneficial for the establishment of societies on the earlier stages of our species, but that's only because it might have been too much to ask for primitive men to come up with something better.

It is much different these days. We HAVE the ability to come up with a better foundation for our society.No, we "moderns" are no less primitive than the people of the Palaeolithic.Evil will still exist without religion, but at least we might be able to rid ourselves of the harmful segregation and the unnecessary creation of several groups or tribes. We are one species, and we should look after each other, and we should also look after our fellow living creatures (which are often claimed to be "inferior" by religion). Religion prevents us from coming up with economic/political systems that work for everyone, that is, the entire human species.There were plenty of examples in the ancient world of religions coexisting or being accepted by different groups. It is not religion as such which causes problems, it is the dreadful arrogance of monotheism above all which has set people at each others' throats.

I heard this from a Dawkings documentary, and I think it's something important to think about: (I don't remember it 100%)
"There are bad people who do bad things and good people who do good things, but it's only with religion that you see good people doing bad things"Attractive soundbite, but unfortunately lacking any basis in truth.

[iJohnHenry]

No, we "moderns" are no less primitive than the people of the Palaeolithic.

Speak for yourself, stinky. :p

But I know you are talking about the collective "we". :D

[skunk]

But I know you are talking about the collective "we". :DAs far as I am concerned, the idea of progress is entirely illusory. The baubles may be gaudier, but the foibles are just as feeble.

[Marble]

God is the belief in a rationalizing principle. If the universe can be understood, then God is the ideal consciousness at the end of that telos that understands it.

However, I agree with skunk. There is no such thing as progress.

If one understands things relatively, then there ain't no ideal and there ain't no God. Maybe there are personal Gods, role models and fictionalized ideals that we construct to represent our goals du jour.

[iJohnHenry]

As far as I am concerned, the idea of progress is entirely illusory. The baubles may be gaudier, but the foibles are just as feeble.

That may be true, for now, but as the wheat is separated from the chaff, we "might" have cause for hope.

EDIT: Whoops, should have gone one post further.

If one understands things relatively, then there ain't no ideal and there ain't no God. Maybe there are personal Gods, role models and fictionalized ideals that we construct to represent our goals du jour.

There are nothing BUT personal Gods.

I have mine, within me, and He serves me well.

[skunk]

That may be true, for now, but as the wheat is separated from the chaff, we "might" have cause for hope.What exactly are you suggesting here? Splitting the human race? How will that change anything for the better? I assume of course that you would class yourself as "wheat".

[Iscariot]

What exactly are you suggesting here? Splitting the human race? How will that change anything for the better? I assume of course that you would class yourself as "wheat".

Brings a new meaning to the term "chav", no?

[skunk]

Brings a new meaning to the term "chav", no?Indeed. However, the whole idea is thoroughly abominable.

[iJohnHenry]

Don't care.

I know what I stand for.

Do you??

[skunk]

Don't care.Why post?

I know what I stand for.

Do you??Yes, I do. I stand for every member of the human race being capable of the best of things and the worst of things.

[redwarrior]

Don't care.

I know what I stand for.

Do you??
Yes sir! No doubt, and no negotiation.
(I fear you are "casting your pearls before swine.")

[Cleverboy]

It is much different these days. We HAVE the ability to come up with a better foundation for our society. Evil will still exist without religion, but at least we might be able to rid ourselves of the harmful segregation and the unnecessary creation of several groups or tribes. Come on. Religion is a not a primary motivator for human behavior. It is the container that frames the instincts we are already led to participate in. Ayn Rand once commented that religion has co-opted many of the higher concepts that would otherwise exist in mankind absent its fascination with the gods. Among these, she included "worship", "sacred", "reverence", "grandeur" and "exaltation".

"Religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life. Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach. "Exaltation" is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. "Worship" means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. "Reverence" means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one's knees. "Sacred" means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc.

But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition." Where I disagree with Rand, is that I personally think that religion is basically a "mass market" way of propagating access to experiential benefits of such emotions where practical access, through mere philosophy, can prove too difficult or obtuse.

Basically, religion has been known to pull people out of depression, and help people make sense of an all too random universe. The TRUTH unfortunately, is that the universe is VERY random, and survival necessitates humanity find easy ways of propagating the will to live in the face of the often debilitating realities of self-awareness. It amuses me that some science-fiction stories find that the first thing self-awareness caused for a new creation, was the desire to destroy itself. It's very annoying and somewhat puzzling.

When it comes to "harmful segregation", I think you're not looking at the bigger picture. Personally, I think "civiization" is the larger organism we form when we successfully learn to work together. There is a natural process by which it is determined that some templates for civilization will war with one another, until the dominant civilization remains... whether it fits with OUR concept of "better" or not... its how it works.

It think its only by acknowledging this reality, that we will EVER gain the ability to not surcomb to it. Unfortunately, most people are too busy participating in the "war"... attempting to "change" it... as opposed to working to "transform" our way out of it (by understanding its nature).

Honestly... there are many atheists out there who would wish to simply "convert" people to atheism. I was gratified in reading the post in the thread "I've seen the light", that picked up on the person would said they'd choose atheism "for now". If one were truly "choosing" to be an atheist, its generally not a "for now" decision, but something arrived at through a thorough and open-minded inquiry into one's own beliefs. It is the OPPOSITE (in the ideal sense) of "group-think". As such, writers like Rand appreciate that it will likely remain a "fringe" conviction to the mainstream... which she remained ambivalent about (as she should).

~ CB

[skunk]

Yes sir! No doubt, and no negotiation.
(I fear you are "casting your pearls before swine.")Just who are you calling swine here?

[Cleverboy]

Don't care. You TOTALLY care. :)

I know what I stand for. Funny thing is, I honestly believe that only applies to zealots. Everyone else appreciates that life is somewhat complicated and that each experience tests our character and gives us greater insight into who we are and what we truly believe.

Do you?? On a given question, on a given day, I can generally give a very solid and unequivocal answer. But, I'm always open to hearing someone else's' point of view, especially if they're open to expressing it in vivid and compelling detail.

~ CB

[skunk]

There is a natural process by which it is determined that some templates for civilization will war with one another, until the dominant civilization remains... whether it fits with OUR concept of "better" or not... its how it works.It is quite clear from history that civilisations are cyclical phenomena: they have a beginning, a middle and an end, whereupon another, more vital model takes over. Resistance is futile. A changing of the guard is essential to maintain vitality.

[blackfox]

Why post?

Yes, I do. I stand for every member of the human race being capable of the best of things and the worst of things.

I quoted this because I think it is relevant to how I view the concept of God and Reiigion.

Like many things, Religion tends to be a mirror of the strengths and weaknesses of it's practitioners.

There are some well-developed souls for whom religion is not necessary, some well-developed souls for whom it is a complement. There are some not-so-developed souls for whom it is an (imperfect) guide making them better than they would be without it, and some not-so-developed souls for whom it reinforces their worst tendencies.

[iJohnHenry]

You TOTALLY care. :)

Damn, you found me out.

You are a clever boy.

:D

[solvs]

If you don't care, why post? :confused:
To let it be known to all just how much he doesn't care. Duh. :p

I assume of course that you would class yourself as "wheat".
Personally, I'm more of a sourdough.

Indeed. However, the whole idea is thoroughly abominable.
First they came for the wheat...

I know what I stand for.

Do you??
The problem with this world is that fools are so sure of themselves while wise men are so full of doubt.

I don't know what god is, but I don't think it's what everyone seems to think it is.

[iJohnHenry]

The problem with this world is that fools are so sure of themselves while wise men are so full of doubt.

You may couch calling me a fool if you wish, because that is just your opinion.

I don't know what god is, but I don't think it's what everyone seems to think it is.

I have devoted my first 68 years of this earth to this puzzle, and my "theory" is the best that I have yet to come up with.

I did all the usual church things as a child, but about age 12 I had to call a halt.

[Eric Piercey]

This topic is too ambiguous to bother with. If there were one meme that were God we could even begin to talk about it. To homo sapiens is the concept of "God:" Intrinsic? No. Integral? No. Irrelevant? No.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Cleverboy]

This topic is too ambiguous to bother with. If there were one meme that were God we could even begin to talk about it. To homo sapiens is the concept of "God:" Intrinsic? No. Integral? No. Irrelevant? No. That pretty much sums it up. Feh. Says you Mr. Simple.

I personally think that the "God meme" is "intrinsic" to the human experience (ie: it is within our basic nature as pattern-finding beings, often given to apophenia... to seek out a largely metaphorical, universal authority). If God did not exist, we would have to create Him. I do not believe it is "integral", as many people can do without god... but it is a conscious decision to make. As such, I can't say that its "irrelevant"... especially not with such interesting commentary being made.

The nature of God as an intrinsic and polymorphous human trait, a vitally proactive force in the world, and/or some fragment of an underdone potato will forever be one of the great framing questions of human existence and the basis of our evolving perception of absolute truth.

Okay, maybe that's overstating the case... but still. :p

~ CB

[imac/cheese]

1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 specifically state that, "God is love"

[blackfox]

1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 specifically state that, "God is love"

Blackfox 6:8 - You aren't supposed to bolster your argument with information from the promotional literature...;)

[imac/cheese]

Blackfox 6:8 - You aren't supposed to bolster your argument with information from the promotional literature...;)

I wasn't arguing, I was simply stating what I believe and where that belief comes from.

[iJohnHenry]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/thewave.gif

Up to 24.53% for "God is love", or "love is God".

Same difference, to me. :D

[skunk]

I personally think that the "God meme" is "intrinsic" to the human experience (ie: it is within our basic nature as pattern-finding beings, often given to apophenia... to seek out a largely metaphorical, universal authority). If God did not exist, we would have to create Him.You must draw a distinction between polytheism and monotheism. Polytheism does not deal with a "universal authority", it deals with a shifting balance of opposing forces, which, in my opinion, is a far more vraisemblable hypothesis.

[Cleverboy]

You must draw a distinction between polytheism and monotheism. Polytheism does not deal with a "universal authority", it deals with a shifting balance of opposing forces, which, in my opinion, is a far more vraisemblable hypothesis. Mm. But, even monotheism slips in polytheistic concepts, giving us "satan worshippers", "angels", "devils" and "saints". Growing up, I found the novel "This Present Darkness" from the prominent Christian author Frank E. Peretti, really captured my imagination, in so far as its canvas of invisible forces... and how Christians play their role in the shifting balance of power. Aside from his classic allegory, C.S.Lewis also had an excellent short story called "The Screwtape Letters". It was interesting primarily because, by its nature, it excluded the very mention of "God"... the very centerpiece of the otherwise monotheistic religion. I can't really see much more than a skin deep distinction between the underlying framework of monotheism and that of polytheism as it relates to contextualising life. One of the biggest complaints of the Greek and Roman pantheon was often how capricious and absent they were in the everyday troubles of mankind. There are multiple personas of the Judeo-Christian god throughout scripture with regards to his willingness to take action. In the end, its all just an extended attempt to let creative narrative to demonstrate meaning and universal connectedness.

~ CB

[floyde]

No, we "moderns" are no less primitive than the people of the Palaeolithic.

We have the same intellectual capacity (our brain is the same size), I agree with that, but we also have accumulated knowledge. We've been through centuries of trial and error. There are several primitive traits (i.e. slavery, human sacrifice, etc.) that we have mostly eliminated from our societies because we gradually learned that they were harmful. I think the same will happen with religion eventually.

There were plenty of examples in the ancient world of religions coexisting or being accepted by different groups. It is not religion as such which causes problems, it is the dreadful arrogance of monotheism above all which has set people at each others' throats.

I think there are still examples in our modern world, but in my opinion the norm is being at each other's throats and not so much peaceful coexistence. But either way, ancient polytheist religions are declining, while monotheism is on the rise. It's not much use that there's a benign type of religion if the harmful type is predominant.

Attractive soundbite, but unfortunately lacking any basis in truth.

Right, it is by no means an axiom, but it's still something to think about. At least I can't think of a situation in which a good person could commit murder without having remorse and thinking that it was the right thing to do. With religion I can think of plenty of scenarios.

Come on. Religion is a not a primary motivator for human behavior. It is the container that frames the instincts we are already led to participate in. Ayn Rand once commented that religion has co-opted many of the higher concepts that would otherwise exist in mankind absent its fascination with the gods. Among these, she included "worship", "sacred", "reverence", "grandeur" and "exaltation".

True, but it's a container that keeps people locked up in obsolete behavior. I think human behavior has changed (very slightly) over time. For me religion is a remnant of ancient times. So if it frames anything then it frames the instincts of those times. But those instincts are changing, or at least they would if they weren't being held back by religion.


Basically, religion has been known to pull people out of depression, and help people make sense of an all too random universe. The TRUTH unfortunately, is that the universe is VERY random, and survival necessitates humanity find easy ways of propagating the will to live in the face of the often debilitating realities of self-awareness. It amuses me that some science-fiction stories find that the first thing self-awareness caused for a new creation, was the desire to destroy itself. It's very annoying and somewhat puzzling.


There are other ways to pull people out of depression, without the dangerous side effects of fairy tale moral rules. I think the fear of death is a good enough way to propagate the will to live. It works for most species. I think that if we are to survive, we'll have to base our strategy on something more realistic. No God is gonna come and save us when we're on the brink of destroying our world with our irresponsible use of resources (in part fueled by some God saying that the world and its creatures are ours for the taking).


When it comes to "harmful segregation", I think you're not looking at the bigger picture. Personally, I think "civiization" is the larger organism we form when we successfully learn to work together. There is a natural process by which it is determined that some templates for civilization will war with one another, until the dominant civilization remains... whether it fits with OUR concept of "better" or not... its how it works.

It think its only by acknowledging this reality, that we will EVER gain the ability to not surcomb to it. Unfortunately, most people are too busy participating in the "war"... attempting to "change" it... as opposed to working to "transform" our way out of it (by understanding its nature).


Well we still have to understand war, but we do understand equal treatment for women and homosexuals, the benefits of medicine, the importance of science, tolerance for different points of view, etc. Or at least most people would understand that if religion didn't teach them otherwise.

I think there's still a lot of things that could improve for humanity if we found an alternative way to cope with the harsh reality of existence without recurring to fantasy.

Sorry if I just spewed nonsense there, I'm a bit sleepy :o

[Iscariot]

Right, it is by no means an axiom, but it's still something to think about. At least I can't think of a situation in which a good person could commit murder without having remorse and thinking that it was the right thing to do. With religion I can think of plenty of scenarios.


Religion is not unique in it's ability to coerce "good" people into "bad" actions. All that's necessary are the proper incentives. Substitute the state, racial purity, the "greater good" for religion and history will readily offer up many examples.

[skunk]

We have the same intellectual capacity (our brain is the same size), I agree with that, but we also have accumulated knowledge. We've been through centuries of trial and error. There are several primitive traits (i.e. slavery, human sacrifice, etc.) that we have mostly eliminated from our societies because we gradually learned that they were harmful. I think the same will happen with religion eventually.Your "centuries of trial and error" may apply to scientific enquiry, but human nature has not noticeably benefitted from "standing on the shoulders of giants", hence war, cruelty, greed, jealousy, anger and hatred. As for slavery and human sacrifice, they still exist in our world, in both absolute terms elsewhere and in cunningly disguised variants adapted to our "civilised" "western" sensibilities.

But either way, ancient polytheist religions are declining, while monotheism is on the rise.Tell that to the Hindus.

For me religion is a remnant of ancient times. So if it frames anything then it frames the instincts of those times. But those instincts are changing, or at least they would if they weren't being held back by religion.What makes you think religion is fading?
Well we still have to understand war, but we do understand equal treatment for women and homosexuals, the benefits of medicine, the importance of science, tolerance for different points of view, etc. Are we living on the same planet? :confused:

[iJohnHenry]

Sorry if I just spewed nonsense there, I'm a bit sleepy :o

Don't concern yourself with that, there's a lot of "sleepy" going around. :rolleyes:

But for what's it's worth, I like the way your brain functions.

[Cleverboy]

Well we still have to understand war, but we do understand equal treatment for women and homosexuals, the benefits of medicine, the importance of science, tolerance for different points of view, etc. Or at least most people would understand that if religion didn't teach them otherwise.Mm. The dangers of generalizing perceived progress in society. I honestly think the only thing that's really changed, is how aware we are of our cultural idiosyncrasies. The intrinsic nature has moved not one inch. Atheists that believe that society at-large can simply cast off "religion" in an instant of clarity and still operate as "civilization" would be well-advised to consider its interconnected purpose. While it is certainly not "integral" to the life of every man, it has an undeniable intrinsic function inside of the invisible hand. I'm constantly amused at the relatives I know, who've espoused a realization of religion's disingenuous nature... only to find religious equilibrium later... attending church and saying nothing of their past outrage. Reminds me of Travolta's character in "Phenomenon", and his whacky astrocytoma brain tumor. Yes, I'm comparing religion to a mythical, "beneficial" instance of irremovable brain cancer. Shoot me.
I think there's still a lot of things that could improve for humanity if we found an alternative way to cope with the harsh reality of existence without recurring to fantasy.The problem with "finding" an alternative, is that it may quickly become as onerous as the original. Take Scientology for example. Take any large group awareness training, and you may all too quickly begin to have a cult of highly suggestible, irrational sheep. In the end, I still think the answer is in embracing fantasy, while not overbearingly acknowledging its basis as metaphor. This is in fact a view that many types of Christians take, something that is very often overlooked. Usually, it's only when people believe religious metaphor is to be taken literally, that they become delusional and dangerous. "God is speaking to me" and all that.

~ CB

[mithrilfox]

Cleverboy, I just want to ask, first of all, are you getting out enough? Just a question;)

I agree with you that often times violence and hate are simply excused with religion, and not the result of... though sometimes can be the result of religion, but it's hard to justify that kind of thinking when so much war has been waged and blood shed for almost entirely religionless reasons. People who do not particularly feel part of any religion will use it as an easy excuse, mostly because they don't understand it, and even maybe because they're a bit afraid of it. After all, converts and members to religions all over the world are increasing, even if it is also partly because Muslims are having so many children! All predictions about the religion-free existence have been completely destroyed.

Other than that, I think it's too easy to get so "into" these kinds of sciences that we lose sight of reality. We start inventing realities to explain reality. It's really, really possible to over analyze and outthink ourselves on these kinds of issues.

Oh, and, I believe God is the ultimate existence who has created all things and existed before time, and has stooped down to assist humanity in their lostness. Yeah... I'm a Christian.

[.Andy]

Other than that, I think it's too easy to get so "into" these kinds of sciences that we lose sight of reality. We start inventing realities to explain reality. It's really, really possible to over analyze and outthink ourselves on these kinds of issues.
Don't think kids. It's dangerous and you could be proven wrong. Science is meaningless. It's easier to make unfalsifiable stuff up to suit your point of view or preconceived beliefs:
Oh, and, I believe God is the ultimate existence who has created all things and existed before time, and has stooped down to assist humanity in their lostness. Yeah... I'm a Christian.

[imac/cheese]

...I heard this from a Dawkings documentary, and I think it's something important to think about: (I don't remember it 100%)
"There are bad people who do bad things and good people who do good things, but it's only with religion that you see good people doing bad things"

Actually in Christianity, we only see bad people doing either good or bad things. According to Luke 18:19 Jesus states, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." We acknowledge that all people are sinners and all have fallen short of the mark set for us by God. In the eyes of God, one sin is a bad as the next sin and only through Jesus are we cleansed of our sins.

[.Andy]

Actually in Christianity, we only see bad people doing either good or bad things. According to Luke 18:19 Jesus states, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." We acknowledge that all people are sinners and all have fallen short of the mark set for us by God. In the eyes of God, one sin is a bad as the next sin and only through Jesus are we cleansed of our sins.
I'm pretty sure you'll find Dawkins was speaking from the vantage of a non-christian.

[redwarrior]

If anyone is interested, A Skeptic's Search for God, by Ralph O. Muscaster, is an excellent book.:)

[.Andy]

If anyone is interested, A Skeptic's Search for God, by Ralph O. Muscaster, is an excellent book.:)
To save anyone reading this book the 'skeptical' atheist author found god through Intelligent Design :rolleyes:.

[redwarrior]

To save anyone reading this book the 'skeptical' atheist author found god through Intelligent Design :rolleyes:.
He found God through 15 years of researching the Bible and modern science, in an attempt to disprove the Bible for himself. He found that biology, history, archeology, and physics, all matched up with the Bible's account.:)

[.Andy]

He found God through 15 years of researching the Bible and modern science, in an attempt to disprove the Bible for himself. He found that biology, history, archeology, and physics, all matched up with the Bible's account.:)
He's certainly a remarkable man! One of the greatest polymaths the earth has seen.

[Cleverboy]

Cleverboy, I just want to ask, first of all, are you getting out enough? Just a question ;) Oh, burrrrn! :) In fact, I just came back from a week in Vegas. It was excellent. I proposed, and she accepted, I'm on Cloud 9, thanks for asking.
Other than that, I think it's too easy to get so "into" these kinds of sciences that we lose sight of reality. We start inventing realities to explain reality. It's really, really possible to over analyze and outthink ourselves on these kinds of issues.The ultimate summary to all this "thinking", is that life is far more complex than we can ever know (though we are able to try). Allow people their contexts for meaning, as long as it doesn't rob us of ours. People get too caught up in what WE think is "truth" sometimes.

~ CB

[.Andy]

Oh, burrrrn! :) In fact, I just came back from a week in Vegas. It was excellent. I proposed, and she accepted, I'm on Cloud 9, thanks for asking.
Hey congratulations Cleverboy :D!



(we are talking getting hitched aren't we?)

[djellison]

Religions are memes based upon things that do not exist. Which box do I tick.


Doug

[Cleverboy]

Hey congratulations Cleverboy :D!
(we are talking getting hitched aren't we?) Gracias! Yes, the love knot. :)

~ CB

[SLC Flyfishing]

I believe god to be a human being just like you and me, albeit in a perfected state. I know it isn't the popular way of thinking around here, but there you go. I've been through a lot of tough things in life and this is what I keep coming back to.

SLC

[djellison]

Oh, and, I believe God is the ultimate existence who has created all things and existed before time, and has stooped down to assist humanity in their lostness. Yeah... I'm a Christian.

Would that assistance include the recent typhoon and earthquake disasters that have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people? I mean - as assistance goes, that's fairly crap. If I phone the breakdown guys for assistance, I'd want them to fix the car - not flip it on its roof and burn it.

Religion as a whole is just rammed so full of hypocrisy that I can't stand it. So busy 'being' good that people waste time when they could be 'doing' good. Building churches instead of moral bridges. Repairing roofs when they could be repairing lives. As a source of moral direction and guidance, it's so utterly utterly hypocritical and broken. That this is so blindingly obvious, and yet people still cling to religion, is something I fear I will never comprehend. Whatever the secret is, it's a stroke of marketing genius.

[redwarrior]

Would that assistance include the recent typhoon and earthquake disasters that have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people? I mean - as assistance goes, that's fairly crap. If I phone the breakdown guys for assistance, I'd want them to fix the car - not flip it on its roof and burn it.

Religion as a whole is just rammed so full of hypocrisy that I can't stand it. So busy 'being' good that people waste time when they could be 'doing' good. Building churches instead of moral bridges. Repairing roofs when they could be repairing lives. As a source of moral direction and guidance, it's so utterly utterly hypocritical and broken. That this is so blindingly obvious, and yet people still cling to religion, is something I fear I will never comprehend. Whatever the secret is, it's a stroke of marketing genius.
I agree with you completely about religion. I believe God hates religion as much as we (you and I) do.

[sushi]

I agree with you completely about religion. I believe God hates religion as much as we (you and I) do.
Yep, religion and faith are completely different IMHO.

[imac/cheese]

Would that assistance include the recent typhoon and earthquake disasters that have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people? I mean - as assistance goes, that's fairly crap. If I phone the breakdown guys for assistance, I'd want them to fix the car - not flip it on its roof and burn it.

Religion as a whole is just rammed so full of hypocrisy that I can't stand it. So busy 'being' good that people waste time when they could be 'doing' good. Building churches instead of moral bridges. Repairing roofs when they could be repairing lives. As a source of moral direction and guidance, it's so utterly utterly hypocritical and broken. That this is so blindingly obvious, and yet people still cling to religion, is something I fear I will never comprehend. Whatever the secret is, it's a stroke of marketing genius.

The fact that there is pain and suffering in this world is the biggest obstacle for people seeking spiritual answers. I would recommend reading Lee Strobel's book, "A Case for Faith" (http://www.leestrobel.com/store.php) if you are interested in a good discussion about how God can still exist and allow suffering and pain to continue.

Unfortunately you are absolutely correct in one aspect. Religion is rammed full of hypocrisy. That is because people are hypocrites. All of us are in some manner or another. And it is people that have been given the job of spreading religion and teaching religion. Christianity is not in and of itself hypocritical. Jesus was very critical of hypocrites. Christians, on the other hand, are often full of hypocrisy and many times treat non-believers in such a disdainful manner. However, we must remember that it is not the church or the christians that are the "source of moral direction and guidance" but the Word of God that is this source.

[redwarrior]

The fact that there is pain and suffering in this world is the biggest obstacle for people seeking spiritual answers. I would recommend reading Lee Strobel's book, "A Case for Faith" (http://www.leestrobel.com/store.php) if you are interested in a good discussion about how God can still exist and allow suffering and pain to continue.


Yes, excellent book for people seeking answers.

[Cleverboy]

Religions are memes based upon things that do not exist. Which box do I tick. Doug If you believe memes exist and that the God concept is one of them, then tick that "God is very clearly a meme".

If you are an atheist, see memes as purely theoretical, and do not see anything unique or special about a meme involving any theistic or polytheistic motif, then tick "God does not exist... at all".

If you believe that God exists, but only as an impenetrable reality that endlessly folds in on itself... tick "God is an nth dimensional complex manifold".

If you are an atheist and you find none of the options appealing, tick "Huh?"

~ CB

[skunk]

He's certainly a remarkable man! One of the greatest polymaths the earth has seen.Indeed he must be.

[floyde]

If anyone is interested, A Skeptic's Search for God, by Ralph O. Muscaster, is an excellent book.:)

I'll read that if you read The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God (http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Scientific-Experience-Personal-Search/dp/1594201072/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213118667&sr=1-1). It's by a proper skeptic, the late Carl Sagan.

[redwarrior]

I'll read that if you read The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God (http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Scientific-Experience-Personal-Search/dp/1594201072/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213118667&sr=1-1). It's by a proper skeptic, the late Carl Sagan.

I would agree to read the book you suggested, but I am completely persuaded in my faith, and am not searching for answers. I am at peace and have no doubt about my existence, how I got here, what my purpose is, and what will happen to me when I die. Nor am I trying to persuade anyone to adopt my faith; I am merely pointing to works to consider if one is questioning his or her beliefs, or lack thereof. :)

[skunk]

I would agree to read the book you suggested, but I am completely persuaded in my faith, and am not searching for answers. I am at peace and have no doubt about my existence, how I got here, what my purpose is, and what will happen to me when I die. Nor am I trying to persuade anyone to adopt my faith; I am merely pointing to works to consider if one is questioning his or her beliefs, or lack thereof. :)If you are as certain of everything as you claim, I venture that you would be singularly unqualified to recommend any reading matter to those who are not.

[redwarrior]

If you are as certain of everything as you claim, I venture that you would be singularly unqualified to recommend any reading matter to those who are not.
So in your opinion, doubtful minds are more qualified to recommend sources? Seems to disqualify the sources. However, I will not make judgments on who is qualified to make those source recommendations.

[skunk]

So in your opinion, doubtful minds are more qualified to recommend sources?In my opinion - humble, of course - sources which appeal to those possessing absolute certainty are unlikely to persuade those who are more sceptical in their outlook.

[redwarrior]

In my opinion - humble, of course - sources which appeal to those possessing absolute certainty are unlikely to persuade those who are more sceptical in their outlook.
Point well taken, and thank you for clarifying. Since you worded it that way, I understand what you are getting at, and do agree. I must admit that I don't know anyone who isn't Christian who has read the book; I only have my own opinion - humble as well.:o

[mithrilfox]

Don't think kids. It's dangerous and you could be proven wrong. Science is meaningless. It's easier to make unfalsifiable stuff up to suit your point of view or preconceived beliefs:

You said it Andy, not me. BTW, I have an avid interest in philosophy and astrology, and regularly contribute to such debates on other forums.


You're gonna have to find your cookie-cutter target somewhere else, you made a mistake with me. ;)

[mithrilfox]

Would that assistance include the recent typhoon and earthquake disasters that have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people?

Yes.

Religion as a whole is just rammed so full of hypocrisy that I can't stand it. So busy 'being' good that people waste time when they could be 'doing' good. Building churches instead of moral bridges. Repairing roofs when they could be repairing lives. As a source of moral direction and guidance, it's so utterly utterly hypocritical and broken. That this is so blindingly obvious, and yet people still cling to religion, is something I fear I will never comprehend. Whatever the secret is, it's a stroke of marketing genius.

???? Don't know where you're getting that. It's obvious you don't comprehend, and don't understand it. Better to get more information and more realistic experience before judging it.

[iJohnHenry]

Yes.

Not really in the first instance.

The hand of Man was evident by it's absence, for God had allowed us to predict the occurrence, but political interference crippled that effort.

In the second, then, yes, as we have not yet mastered the same techniques for prediction is this area, some intervention by God would have been welcomed.

[skunk]

I believe god to be a human being just like you and me, albeit in a perfected state. I know it isn't the popular way of thinking around here, but there you go.Sounds a lot like Arianism to me, which wouldn't be popular with the Christians around here either. Such heresy!

[.Andy]

You said it Andy, not me.
Actually you did. It's right here;

Other than that, I think it's too easy to get so "into" these kinds of sciences that we lose sight of reality. We start inventing realities to explain reality. It's really, really possible to over analyze and outthink ourselves on these kinds of issues.
Discredit science and logical thought. Advance shaky case for omnipotent supernatural being. Rinse and repeat.

BTW, I have an avid interest in philosophy and astrology, and regularly contribute to such debates on other forums.
Astrology? Good heavens.

You're gonna have to find your cookie-cutter target somewhere else, you made a mistake with me. ;)
Your plumage display is impressive.

[mithrilfox]

Actually you did. It's right here;


Discredit science and logical thought. Advance shaky case for omnipotent supernatural being. Rinse and repeat.

Saying not to get too deep into such "meta-scientific" areas of study is hardly discrediting science and logical thought. It's not even close. Open your eyes for a moment, and read what I wrote, not what you predetermined me to be.


Your plumage display is impressive.

There's no room for me in this discussion, that's quite obvious. Pardon me for being rude, but this discussion is all about you, your opinions, and your worldview. No room for me, so I'm done with it. I will not answer any more of your messages to me, because I have wasted far too many minutes of my life on worthless conversation with your type. Sorry.

[themadchemist]

He found God through 15 years of researching the Bible and modern science, in an attempt to disprove the Bible for himself. He found that biology, history, archeology, and physics, all matched up with the Bible's account.:)

I'll speak up for modern science here...Biology and physics definitely do *not* seem to agree with precisely the Bible's account. By biology's best guess, life started billions of years ago and adapted through a series of mutations, translocations, and genetic transfers, to its current form. Physics, I would think, has the universe starting earlier than the Bible would have gone, at least judging by when the Bible claims life began.

The ideas of science can fit with the Bible if you agree not to interpret the Bible literally or accept all of its contents as infallible truth. If you can, instead, take them to be divinely inspired, but heavily, heavily, influenced by man, then you can see the descriptions of the Bible as a literary reformulation of the more current findings of science.

That said, I don't think it's necessary even to insist that the Bible or any other religious text is historically or scientifically accurate even to the point of being close, in order to believe in God. I believe in God (not a Christian, for the record), but I don't claim that religious texts of my religion or any other were spot on historically or with respect to science. They serve a purpose as philosophical texts that help us to think about ourselves and about the world, and to learn valuable lessons about life. They can be a source of wisdom and of insight and of comfort. They can be moral compasses for our daily lives. And to do all of these things, they need not be precise in the least; they need not even be from the hand of God. They are tools in the pursuit of some greater knowledge, if you believe in God, and to the extent that they are effective in that pursuit, then that's enough, isn't it? Why this obsession with perfect accuracy?

[floyde]

I would agree to read the book you suggested, but I am completely persuaded in my faith, and am not searching for answers. I am at peace and have no doubt about my existence, how I got here, what my purpose is, and what will happen to me when I die. Nor am I trying to persuade anyone to adopt my faith; I am merely pointing to works to consider if one is questioning his or her beliefs, or lack thereof. :)

Fair enough. If you ever want to have a better understanding of an atheist friend or whatever, you should give the book a try. It's a pretty good read and it'll show you an alternative perspective on existence, purpose and death. Your beliefs will probably remain the same, so no worries there.

[themadchemist]

Unfortunately, the choices of the poll don't really leave much space for the monists among us. I believe that all of existence is a part of God--"God is love" is a poor substitution for that.

[.Andy]

Saying not to get too deep into such "meta-scientific" areas of study is hardly discrediting science and logical thought. It's not even close.
There's no reason not to get in 'too deep' into any form of science or concept of human understanding as long as it's done so logically. Perhaps you could list some 'meta-scientific'* areas of study that shouldn't be pursued in depth?

It's a tired trick of those who believe in the supernatural to try and construct realities (or 'truths') outside the realm of science or bathe their beliefs in the current gaps in knowledge. It doesn't convince anyone but the delusional. No matter how many paragraphs are written on the subject.

*Goalpost change to 'meta-scienctific' noted?


There's no room for me in this discussion, that's quite obvious. Pardon me for being rude, but this discussion is all about you, your opinions, and your worldview. No room for me, so I'm done with it. I will not answer any more of your messages to me, because I have wasted far too many minutes of my life on worthless conversation with your type. Sorry.
So this is your self-trumpeted philosophical debating ability that shouldn't be messed with? Ad hominem attacks followed by a cowardly bailout of the discussion? I would have thought someone who posts on philosophy and astrology forums would have a little more mettle when it comes to being challenged.

[Iscariot]

He found God through 15 years of researching the Bible and modern science, in an attempt to disprove the Bible for himself. He found that biology, history, archeology, and physics, all matched up with the Bible's account.:)

One need only point out that he is not a biologist, historian, archeologist or physicist.

[.Andy]

One need only point out that he is not a biologist, historian, archeologist or physicist.
And that he is a creationist.

A prolific, short book writing, creationist.

Who thinks intelligent design has merit.

[Iscariot]

And that he is a creationist.

I'm assuming the latter is in correlation with the former.

[redwarrior]

Fair enough. If you ever want to have a better understanding of an atheist friend or whatever, you should give the book a try. It's a pretty good read and it'll show you an alternative perspective on existence, purpose and death. Your beliefs will probably remain the same, so no worries there.
I am seriously considering reading the book with my daughter (16 years old). I have discussed this conversation with her, and she recommended that we read it. We can be very sheltered, living in the "bible-belt" and also in a small community. I literally never encounter anyone except Christians here!

[floyde]

I am seriously considering reading the book with my daughter (16 years old). I have discussed this conversation with her, and she recommended that we read it. We can be very sheltered, living in the "bible-belt" and also in a small community. I literally never encounter anyone except Christians here!

I'm glad to hear that. I think it's very healthy to be open to opposing points of view, specially in touchy subjects such as these. It's not the definitive book on atheist thought, since it only expresses Sagan's personal views, but I'd say that it's the best starting point if you're at least curious about the subject. The ideas in the book are very clearly portrayed and, even if you don't agree with them, you wont be offended by them either (as you probably would if you read Dawkings or some other author).

I'd read your book but I think I've already explored those ideas many times. In fact, that's how I started moving away from religion (I used to be a Catholic).

[redwarrior]

I'm glad to hear that. I think it's very healthy to be open to opposing points of view, specially in touchy subjects such as these. It's not the definitive book on atheist thought, since it only expresses Sagan's personal views, but I'd say that it's the best starting point if you're at least curious about the subject. The ideas in the book are very clearly portrayed and, even if you don't agree with them, you wont be offended by them either (as you probably would if you read Dawkings or some other author).

I'd read your book but I think I've already explored those ideas many times. In fact, that's how I started moving away from religion (I used to be a Catholic).
I try to steer as far away from religion as I possibly can. It's very oppressive. Live by love and respect others, works for me. I home school my children. Sagan's book looks like excellent reading material for next year; I'm going to put it on the list. Thanks!:)

[Eric Piercey]

Our species is capable of extrapolation. I'm not sure how else to quantify imagination without opening a new discussion. We can take that which is "given" or accepted to be true and extend that information; speculate, intuit, et al.

In that sense the tendency to characterize or formulate a concept to explain the unknown in a neat tidy package often referred to as God but not necessarily is certainly intrinsic, if meme's even exist. At the very root (or the outer edge depending on how one views it) of awareness there is always more to be known.. or the unknown. Always. That's how it works. Meme's though, I'm not sure they're quantifiable. Whatever the work whistle blew 4 minutes ago.

[iJohnHenry]

"God is Love" is now over 26%.

Thank you free-thinkers everywhere.

[.Andy]

"God is Love" is now over 26%.

Thank you free-thinkers everywhere.
Free-thinkers? What does that even mean :confused:. What is the alternative?

[iJohnHenry]

Dogma. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma)

[Cleverboy]

"God is Love" is now over 26%.
Thank you free-thinkers everywhere. Curses!
Our species is capable of extrapolation. I'm not sure how else to quantify imagination without opening a new discussion. We can take that which is "given" or accepted to be true and extend that information; speculate, intuit, et al. Whenever we "accept" any premise as given, we can benefit from compounding the pre-existing research (leading to the danger of knowledge without wisdom), or we might be severely disadvantaged by compounding on a previous fallacy (like the sun resolving around the Earth or an atom being the smallest measure of matter). No "given" should remain static. Change is persistence. That which remains immutable fades. Even in religion, there is evolution (or at least permutation). From Judaism and Catholicism to Unitarianism, people are often attempting to reset the framework of religion to fit a larger worldview and their impression of their personal concept of God.

In that sense the tendency to characterize or formulate a concept to explain the unknown in a neat tidy package often referred to as God but not necessarily is certainly intrinsic, if meme's even exist. At the very root (or the outer edge depending on how one views it) of awareness there is always more to be known.. or the unknown. Always. That's how it works. Meme's though, I'm not sure they're quantifiable. Well. Try this idea on. Morphic resonance is a term coined by Rupert Sheldrake in his 1981 book A New Science of Life. He uses the expression to refer to what he thinks is "the basis of memory in nature... the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species."

Sheldrake has been trained in 20th century scientific models--he has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Cambridge University (1967)--but he prefers Goethe and 19th century vitalism. Sheldrake prefers teleological to mechanistic models of reality. In the grand evolution of the human species, at what point in our development did we start fantasizing about God? Was lightning or fire the first God? If the concept of God and religion weren't in anyway beneficial towards our development, why does it flourish so wildly within our species? What if certain memes were passed on through some mechanism like morphic resonance? I think its a question worthy of pondering. What the rest of the scientific world terms lawfulness--the tendency of things to follow patterns we call laws of nature--Sheldrake calls morphic resonance. He describes it as a kind of memory in things determined not by their inherent natures, but by repetition. He also describes MR as something which is transmitted via "morphogenetic fields." This gives him a conceptual framework wherein information is transmitted mysteriously and miraculously through any amount of space and time without loss of energy, and presumably without loss or change of content through something like mutation in DNA replication. Thus, room is made for psychical as well as physical transmission of information. There was a scientific study done regarding behaviors that developed on one island, that benefitted a certain species of indigenous life. It turned out that, even with no possible way for the animals to travel between surrounding islands, related animals began developing the same behavior around the same time. Issues like this are somewhat difficult to track, as we cannot predict when such momentous events are/have occuring/occured. Its like the search for the missing link. If forming religion and/or a God concept, has been an integral part of our evolutionary fabric (however criticized and polymorphic), it might have us look at it differently in terms of our ability to get along and socialize. Perhaps there is a metaform that could be developed, for the concept of "God" that has us refer to "God" in traditional ways, but attaches it to the development of substantive progress in how we understand our nature as human beings. If you went through life ignoring a phone call, having it ring incessantly... disrupting your work, and then after years, realized that you only needed to answer the phone once a week to enjoy days of peaceful quiet?

Sometimes I feel like atheistic movements like "The Blasphemy Challenge (http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/)", are predicated on the foolhardy notion that in order for science to flourish, religion must die. Since perception itself rests on the opinion of the observer, we rely on agreement between independent resources to establish accepted reality. What if the God concept has escaped the most fruitful inquiries of science, purely based off of a bad premise (that the only possible union, imperfect as it is, remains the concept of Intelligent Design)?

The dimensions of the known universe are still expanding. You are now 0.000314159 % larger than you were yesterday.

~ CB

[mithrilfox]

I try to steer as far away from religion as I possibly can. It's very oppressive. Live by love and respect others, works for me.

Wow, you can make that sweeping generalization of all religion like that? That's a pretty bold and daring thing to say. How much experience do you have with "religion," what kinds, and when? Can you explain how it oppresses, particularly how it oppressed you.

Also, can you explain how the laws of a country, the social norms and cultural expectations of a people, and the binding agreements that people enter into by word or by contract, how all of these things are NOT oppressive? And if they are oppressive, should we dispense with them all? Is that possible?

[iJohnHenry]

What do binding agreements and religion have to do with each other???

I, God, party of the first part, do state that Humans, party of the second part, will agree to what I say, no matter what.

[Cleverboy]

Unfortunately, the choices of the poll don't really leave much space for the monists among us. I believe that all of existence is a part of God--"God is love" is a poor substitution for that.
An nth dimensional complex manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_surfaces) could be a reasonable substitute for a transcendentalist perception of a God that at once comprises the Universe, and exists in every part of it. In essence, God as the primary substance of a fractal reality. A thought anyway.

~ CB

[redwarrior]

Wow, you can make that sweeping generalization of all religion like that? That's a pretty bold and daring thing to say. How much experience do you have with "religion," what kinds, and when? Can you explain how it oppresses, particularly how it oppressed you.

Also, can you explain how the laws of a country, the social norms and cultural expectations of a people, and the binding agreements that people enter into by word or by contract, how all of these things are NOT oppressive? And if they are oppressive, should we dispense with them all? Is that possible?
No, I'm done, but thank you for your attention.:)

[themadchemist]

An nth dimensional complex manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_surfaces) could be a reasonable substitute for a transcendentalist perception of a God that at once comprises the Universe, and exists in every part of it. In essence, God as the primary substance of a fractal reality. A thought anyway.

~ CB

Ooh, head hurts. I'll read about Riemann surfaces when I finish the boards and have some more processing power to spare. :) But thanks, I'll see how they fit together for me; it seems like an interesting way of conceptualizing God.

[iJohnHenry]

An nth dimensional complex manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_surfaces) could be a reasonable substitute for a transcendentalist perception of a God that at once comprises the Universe, and exists in every part of it. In essence, God as the primary substance of a fractal reality. A thought anyway.

~ CB

And we were created in His image. No??

The better to do His work on this Earth.

Sorry religion, only the best tuna gets to be Starkissed.

Oh, and themadchemist, don't sweat it. Just go on with your life, because everything else is ephemeral.

(That one was for skunk.)

[solvs]

An nth dimensional complex manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_surfaces) could be a reasonable substitute for a transcendentalist perception of a God that at once comprises the Universe, and exists in every part of it. In essence, God as the primary substance of a fractal reality. A thought anyway.
That's somewhat close to my belief, though not in so many complex words.

George Carlin once did a bit about God positing that in order for it to be good, it had to not be all powerful. But that would negate it from being a god. So instead of a good/evil dichotomy (is that right, dichotomy... I think that was the term I was looking for) we can extrapolate that if god does indeed exist, it's probably neither good, nor evil. Nor would it be considered a sentient being in and of itself, merely a compilation of sentience itself, as well as the natural world, both known and unknown. Trying to understand it, or how it works, is one thing. Our brains are too small to comprehend, but large and evolved enough to attempt to comprehend, and realize we're comprehending it. The problem comes when we look for it's motivation. It may not have one, even if we count existence itself as motivation. It really isn't. It just, is.

That was the original name for God, I've read. It is. Somehow, the translation has been changed somewhere to something else. God given a face, as it were. Anthropomorphized. Makes it easier to understand for some, but also gives it unneeded human traits, which are then easier hid behind to manipulate to drive agendas.

[themadchemist]

Oh, and themadchemist, don't sweat it. Just go on with your life, because everything else is ephemeral.

(That one was for skunk.)

Why? I think I'll check it out more because the math looks kind of fun. :-p

[skunk]

That was the original name for God, I've read. It is. The Jewish god allegedly called himself "I am".