http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk&feature=sub

I love Pat Condell. The video pretty much sums my feelings about churchs and the morg in particular.

Wow, like the polar opposite of watching General Conference. Enjoyed it, thanks for posting.

Thanks for the update!! It was about time to check for another of his videos. I've watched pretty much all of them. They are seriously the best. I felt uncomfortable at first with his Jesus bashing, but after a while, I craved it. It was liberating to rid myself of dogmatic faith. He damn near turned me into an atheist, but I don't really believe in Jesus, and it truly is solely because of him, I kid you not. Happy watching everyone!

I just want to make a pitch for the idea that one can accept and believe in God and not subscribe to any organized faith. Not all non-churchgoers are atheists. I'm not.

Having said that, I think the atheists/freethinkers continue to provide a great service when they remind people of the importance of reason, logic, and critical thinking skills. I am happy to see them take part in our national debate about religion.

It is possible to accept the idea of a Higher Power and still not believe that Mary was a virgin, Lot's wife botched the family's Great Escape, Mohammed flew a donkey across the sky, Joseph Smith read the restored Gospel at the bottom of a hat, and Adam and Eve rode to church on dinosaurs.

Athena Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just want to make a pitch for the idea that one
> can accept and believe in God and not subscribe to
> any organized faith. Not all non-churchgoers are
> atheists. I'm not.
>
> Having said that, I think the
> atheists/freethinkers continue to provide a great
> service when they remind people of the importance
> of reason, logic, and critical thinking skills. I
> am happy to see them take part in our national
> debate about religion.
>
> It is possible to accept the idea of a Higher
> Power and still not believe that Mary was a
> virgin, Lot's wife botched the family's Great
> Escape, Mohammed flew a donkey across the sky,
> Joseph Smith read the restored Gospel at the
> bottom of a hat, and Adam and Eve rode to church
> on dinosaurs.

Agreed. I do not believe in the Bible, feel compelled to attend church regularly, discriminate against gays or do any of the things that many of you think theists do, but I do believe in a higher power.I also believe in evolution, know the earth is billions of years old and I reject superstition. Just saying.

It seems to me that people that do not believe in organized religion may well be believing in a God they made up all on their own.

Keeping in mind that this is addressing those that do not believe in organized religion, I ask: Say someone is the sort that looks around and sees all the complexity of the world and thinks, well it must be created by something and I will call that something God. Well, that is a made up explanation. Instead of saying "I do not know what created all this and I am fine with that", the creation is attributed to an invisible God. So, the question is, what reasonable evidence do you have that validates your belief in God? If there is no reasonable evidence, are you saying you believe for no reason at all? Are you basing that belief on your feelings, which of course, is what many of the LDS are doing?

Let's see if I can answer them. I am by no means an erudite philosopher, and others may have different answers, but here are mine.

When I refer to "God" or "Goddess" I do not mean any of the myths that humans have developed to personify the unknown Higher Power. I don't mean Zeus, Yahweh, Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean simply "the Divine Creator." In that sense, yes, it's a God I made up on my own. But aren't all personal conceptions of God "made up" in some way? Two Catholics, raised with the same myths, will visualize God and Jesus differently.

Science has answers to many questions. The discovery of scientific facts illuminates HOW the universe works, but not WHY it works. Science says very little about WHY. I accept, for example, that life evolved from chains of amino acids and was not created in six days, but why does life exist at all? Science can't answer that. The planets in our solar system may well be still-hot-and-spinning pieces of a larger explosion - the "big bang" - but something created the matter that was there to explode. What was it? What created IT?

If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it must have always existed in some form. If everything - life, rocks, energy - has an origin, was there ever a time when NOTHING existed? If so, then some force other than the existing universe created the building blocks of this universe. If not, then SOMETHING has existed for all eternity - and eternity brings me back to God.

Time and energy are finite. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. If anything is eternal, it must be something outside the constraints of this universe. I call that "something" God.

All religions, present and past, have had some concept of eternity. Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation. Christians believe in salvation and resurrection. I believe this is not coincidence, and that it's more than humans' egocentric need to believe we will endure forever. I see it is a truth we all understand differently, but a truth nonetheless.

I think great religious teachers of all faiths - Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus; great shamans, priests, mystics, and laypeople whose faith inspired their life's work, were all sharing versions of the same message: These short lives we live are not the end. Do the best you can with your mortal existence, but it's not the end of the story.

There is a difference between myth and fiction. Fiction is made up and untrue. A myth is not LITERALLY true but speaks to a greater, universal truth. Poseidon isn't real, but the human energy he represented to the Greeks most certainly is.

Besides, some of the greatest mysteries cannot be explained by logic. Scientific researchers can analyze dopamine levels during sexual arousal, but cannot explain why love exists. At some point, one reaches the limits of logic. I believe God exists past those limits.

Others, of course, are welcome to their own thoughts on the matter, as long as they don't knock on my door to discuss them or cover my car in leaflets. :-)

I don't attempt to define god or pretend to understand him/her, but I do believe there is a higher power. I also admit that I could be wrong.

"Why" is a human construct. The universe is so much bigger than humans, does there have to be a reason? I don't think so. I'm good with ever-improving explanations of how.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2010 04:57AM by MJ.

Funny how it's difficult to articulate without using the same construct. That illustrates how limited and inconsequential we are, except to ourselves.

:-)

Immune cells, for example, have a purpose, a reason why they exist in the human organism. It's not a human construct that they have a "why" they came into existence.

If one believes there doesn't have to be a why, it would wipe out much of Darwin's ideas about evolution. There's a why to species evolving and changing and acquiring traits or body parts not previously there. (There's a why to a species no longer having legs and another changing the shape of it's beak.) There are reasons in nature which is why humans naturally start life asking why,why,why by age 2.

Those who ask why the universe or humans exists are expanding the question of why further from asking why a species changed from it's prior form.

The question of "why" is not "nonsensical" (not saying you used these words) or "irrelevant" as its a fundamental step even in science leading to the clues that explain the "how."

There is nothing wrong with asking "why[?]". I just find it silly that people insist on a reason more noble than; ecause we are filling a place in the food chain, or to sustain our exsistence. Ultimately I am capable of defining what my purpose is through my actions. My definition may not be universaly relivant, but it is personally relivant.

There is no evidence that any other creature has ever pondered the question "why?" and guess what? Life went on for billions of years without anyone or anything asking or answering the question "Why?". It seems everything will go on regardless of if we find an answer to the question "Why?" or not. Based on what we know, the question of "Why?" is not at all import to those "immune cells" you are talking about but they still go on about their business. "Why?" is a human construct that is only important to humans in trying to explain the world around them. In and of itself, answering the question "Why?" about anything we can ask "Why?" about has no impact on anything other than human curiosity and knowledge. The immune cell apparently could not care less that we answer the question "Why?".

It seems to me that if the immune cell can exist without the question "why?" ever being addressed, then the immune cell has no other reason to exist other than it is just what happened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2010 04:36PM by MJ.

I've gone though and addressed the points you tried to make in detail below. Sorry, but I do not see how valid logic could come to the conclusions that you do.

The question about which is eternal God or the Universe is an interesting one. I submit for your consideration, that a Universe must exist in order for their to be a God. The broadest definition of the term "Universe", is basically: 'the totality of everything that exists'. Using the broadest definition of Universe, the claim that God exists, would include God in the universe that contains everything that exists. Even if God was the only thing that exits, God would still be in the universe of everything that exists. This would mean that if God is eternal, then the Universe would also need to be eternal. If there needs to be an eternal universe in order to have an eternal God, why can't there be an eternal universe that does not contain God?


Athena Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> When I refer to "God" or "Goddess" I do not mean
> any of the myths that humans have developed to
> personify the unknown Higher Power. I don't mean
> Zeus, Yahweh, Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster. I mean simply "the Divine Creator." In
> that sense, yes, it's a God I made up on my own.
> But aren't all personal conceptions of God "made
> up" in some way? Two Catholics, raised with the
> same myths, will visualize God and Jesus
> differently.

OK, you have said what God you do not believe in.

>
> Science has answers to many questions. The
> discovery of scientific facts illuminates HOW the
> universe works, but not WHY it works.

You are assuming there is a "Why", which assumes there is some actual purpose to all this, which is by no means certain. It is entirely possible that everything exists simply because it exists without any higher purpose. In which case, asking "why?" would be a nonsensical, irrelevant question.

> Science says
> very little about WHY. I accept, for example, that
> life evolved from chains of amino acids and was
> not created in six days, but why does life exist
> at all? Science can't answer that.

Again you assume that there is a "Why" that science needs to address.

> The planets in
> our solar system may well be
> still-hot-and-spinning pieces of a larger
> explosion - the "big bang" - but something created
> the matter that was there to explode. What was it?
> What created IT?

You claim that something created the matter, what evidence do you have that the universe is not eternal? Simply to claim "something created the matter that was there to explode" does not in any way make it fact.

>
> If matter and energy cannot be created or
> destroyed,

Indicating that it is eternal and has no need for a God to create it. Indeed if you maintain that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed then claim that God created matter an energy, you are contradicting yourself.

> then it must have always existed in
> some form.

Agreed, thus nothing was needed to create it.

> If everything - life, rocks, energy -
> has an origin, was there ever a time when NOTHING
> existed?

Eh? This is a strange leap from claiming talking about everything being eternal to everything having questioning if there was ever a time where there was nothing. I assume that question applies equally to God. BTW, so far you could apply your same thinking to God.

You raised to possibilities with your questioning then without giving a reason assumed on to be true, why is that?

> If so, then some force other than the
> existing universe created the building blocks of
> this universe. If not, then SOMETHING has existed
> for all eternity - and eternity brings me back to
> God.

Why does it bring us back to God? If God can be eternal, why can't a godless universe be eternal?

>
> Time and energy are finite.

That is a claim, but that is far from certain. If the universe continues to expand, then time would indeed be infinite.

> There is no such thing
> as a perpetual motion machine.

If the Universe was a machine, then I would agree with you, but I would not claim that the universe is a machine. You re making major assumptions here.

> If anything is
> eternal, it must be something outside the
> constraints of this universe. I call that
> "something" God.

Sorry, but your logic does not justify this claim. The law of conservation of energy (that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed thing) would indicate that the Universe must be eternal.

And as I pointed out, that a universe that contains everything would contain God.

>
> All religions, present and past, have had some
> concept of eternity. Buddhists and Hindus believe
> in reincarnation. Christians believe in salvation
> and resurrection. I believe this is not
> coincidence, and that it's more than humans'
> egocentric need to believe we will endure forever.
> I see it is a truth we all understand differently,
> but a truth nonetheless.
>

So? How does this prove anything? I am an atheist and I have a belief that the godless universe is eternal. That a Universe did exist and even has to exist even for a God to exist.

> I think great religious teachers of all faiths -
> Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus; great shamans, priests,
> mystics, and laypeople whose faith inspired their
> life's work, were all sharing versions of the same
> message: These short lives we live are not the
> end. Do the best you can with your mortal
> existence, but it's not the end of the story.
>

Again, what does this prove?

> There is a difference between myth and fiction.
> Fiction is made up and untrue. A myth is not
> LITERALLY true but speaks to a greater, universal
> truth. Poseidon isn't real, but the human energy
> he represented to the Greeks most certainly is.
>

But that does not prove a god in any way shape or form, I fail to see what the last three paragraphs have to do with proving anything. If anything you are trying to use the unsupported claims of humans to justify your beliefs.

> Besides, some of the greatest mysteries cannot be
> explained by logic.

At least not at this point, but you have no idea if science will or will not be able to explain those mysteries in the future.

> Scientific researchers can
> analyze dopamine levels during sexual arousal, but
> cannot explain why love exists. At some point, one
> reaches the limits of logic. I believe God exists
> past those limits.
>

Again, they can not do so AT THIS TIME, that does NOT mean that they never will be able to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2010 04:48AM by MJ.

Bet you're a real hoot at parties...

...then enjoy intelligent well thought out discussions about a wide variety of topics, something that I am guessing you do not.

Do you have any thing of value to add to the discussion or are you just taking shots at me personally? Such behavior, I am sure, makes you a big hit at parties.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2010 04:57AM by MJ.

We agree on something, then. I too enjoy intelligent, well-thought-out discussions. Drunks are boring.

I am truly happy to hear the arguments of atheists and humanists included in debates about how religion should or should not inform our culture.

But in philosphies I like - everything is born from emptyness.

...that there is a being or intelligence that is more knowledgable and evolved than myself...an entity that is kinder, wiser, more just, more compassionate, more loving and understanding, more at peace, etc. In other words, this being represents a spiritual ideal to which I can aspire.

I like to think that spiritual awareness is an area in which we can grow, both in this world an the next.

Oh, I just finished watching that video before I even came in here. LOL

Whenever I feel the need to for a higher being or power, it's usually when I'm at my most vulnerable or helpless. I therefore conclude that at its core, it's mere wishful thinking, a desire for a savior of sorts. I recognize this as the hard-wiring someone wrote about the human brain, the need for a god. It's a harsh world and we need some rituals or procedures to pretend we can control or at least influence our surroundings. Rain dances quickly come to mind.

Asking "why" also tends to bring on the yearning for a god in control. I agree with munchy on this: "why" is a human-centric construct.

someone or something that can fix it for me.

Lovely turn of phrase.

For myself, I would add that I disagree with the video where he says religious people should be "abused" and he's surprised they don't get more "abuse." This is dogma. It's fundamentalism just as much as any other. The faith of some may be a joke, on that I agree, but advocating abuse of anyone for their faith is worse.

The same with those who counter every point of view different from their own by immediately saying the other person who engages them in a conversation has no "valid" logic or valid arguments. Those are the tactics of bullying, ideology and fear of being intellectually inferior.

Intellectual discipline, as opposed to faking it, appreciates the dialogue because one understands that in the process we will learn where our own weaknesses in articulation need polish. The true intellectual whose arguments flow from loyalty to approximating truth--rather than dogmatically proclaiming their truth is the truth--appreciates that another who has another view engages in the dialogue and is willing to explain their reasons so that we can approximate truth together.

Repeated emotionally charged insults at another person is evidence that the reptilian brain controls rather than the intellect. In that state of mind a person always thinks their logic is superior but it is a delusion very similar to the drunk whose sure they can drive home just fine.

Excellent post, Cristina.

readthissomewhere Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent post, Cristina.

Ditto and thank your from me

I don't care if somebody wants to workship rocks, but I do care when the rock worshipping group files papers to be a church or a religion and then demands tax free status and insists that people automatically respect their beliefs.

The God issue is a whole other ball of wax. Nobody knows if there is a higher power. Most atheists that I know are usually the first to say they do not believe in a god or at this point there is no evidence for a god.

I see no evidence either. If there is a higher power, I hope it is not something like the god of Abraham.

How can anyone say whether or not they believe in God unless we first agree on who or what God is? I may not believe in a white bearded Father, Christ, and Holy Ghost trinity, but still believe in something beyond the observable physical world - like a life-force, or the power of love. It could be argued that those things are God, that God is in all of us or that God is love.

Without evidence to back up your claims that God is Love, then that claim is no better than someone claiming there is a teapot orbiting around Mars or there is a Pepsi machine on Pluto.

To base one's life on such unproven claims, then try to force those beliefs on others is nonsense.