Giving up on God

[newcrasher]

I was raised with the traditional judeo-xtian concept of God...that is that he is a wrathful creator who, at the end of the day, really loves us after all.

But that definition has become too small to fit what I think this thing we call "God" is.

I think God (god?) is the right order of the universe. He is not a personality. He doesn't watch over us and keep us from harm. Read the headlines regarding the millions of his children dieing all the time.

But I think that God is love, and harmony, and rightness, and justice. He is the divine order of the universe. He is the goodness in the fabric of the cosmos that we all strain to grasp...atheists and theists alike.

When we "sin" we separate ourselves from God...that is we separate ourselves from the way the universe is meant to be. Most often I believe sin comes in the form of claiming some right for ourselves that requires us to deny the rights of another. When we spend $100 on a meal and pass the hungry person without a thought, we sin. When we destroy beauty for our own gain, we sin. When we kill, we sin. When we are apathetic to the needs of our brothers and sisters, we sin.

So can I still profess to be a Christian? A follower of Christ? Can I still dig on the crazy antics of Jesus?

yes.

I think Jesus grasped in a unique way the image of god in the world. He saw it in himself and he saw it in others.

But the judeo-xtian scriptures as the infallible word of God? Not hardly. I see the scriptures as the struggle of a people to understand God. Sometimes the authors are brilliantly on point, and frankly sometimes I think they missed the point. There are beautiful acts of love and heroism and poetry and adventure and forgiveness and grace thoughout both the New and Old Testaments. But there is also unspeakable bloodshed, cruelty, evil, meanness and vice. Do I think God spoke those attrocities into being and we are left to try justify the acts of an vicious and jealous deity?

No. But neither are we to deny the times the authors got it right. There are wonderful examples of ancient peoples seeking and finding god in trials and in good times.

So how do I now approach other holy texts? Well if I believe God is woven into the fabric of the universe, longing to bring the world into the "right" order, then he certainly is accessible to all peoples, correct? I can now read holy texts from around the world and view them as man's attempt to be in right relationship with God, that is with goodness and with love.

But God as him or her? Loving us? Punishing us? Protecting us? I think I may have to give up on that concept.

[Key Lime Guy]

Just a hunch, but reading some Dostoyevsky might help get you to where you're going.

[newcrasher]

Originally Posted by Key Lime Guy

Just a hunch, but reading some Dostoyevsky might help get you to where you're going.

Any specific suggestions?

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by newcrasher

I was raised with the traditional judeo-xtian concept of God...that is that he is a wrathful creator who, at the end of the day, really loves us after all.

But that definition has become too small to fit what I think this thing we call "God" is.

I think God (god?) is the right order of the universe. He is not a personality. He doesn't watch over us and keep us from harm. Read the headlines regarding the millions of his children dieing all the time.

But I think that God is love, and harmony, and rightness, and justice. He is the divine order of the universe. He is the goodness in the fabric of the cosmos that we all strain to grasp...atheists and theists alike.

God is product, packaged and sold by religions to suckers.

[Key Lime Guy]

Originally Posted by newcrasher

Any specific suggestions?

I may get criticized for this - but reading about Dostoyevsky might be a better way to start. Maybe the book by Berdyaev? (which doesn't seem to show up on Amazon)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by newcrasher

Any specific suggestions?

You'd probably like The Brothers Karmazov.

[newcrasher]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

God is product, packaged and sold by religions to suckers.

Right. and I ain't buyin'!

However I think there is a rightness in the universe worth seeking. Can i call that God? How about god?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by newcrasher

Right. and I ain't buyin'!

However I think there is a rightness in the universe worth seeking. Can i call that God? How about god?

Sure. That concept of god is not going to make you try to limit the freedom of others, or to make you feel guilty for doing things that seem right to you. It's putting a name on things that do exist, and on feelings. Go for it.

[Indistinguishable]

You say you are still a Christian, but, from your descriptions of his specialness in the OP, it seems more as though you view him as merely a great teacher or philosopher than as some uniquely divine person. So, I'm curious: though you seem to have abandoned the usual concept of God as an intelligent being with superhuman powers, and apparently have no superstrong attachment anymore to the Bible, do you still believe in Jesus's virgin birth, his resurrection three days after his death, his performing the various miracles, etc.?

[I'm not saying you have to do those things to be allowed to call yourself Christian; I'm just curious. It does seem odd to me to cling to the word "God" for your very abstract conception of order/goodness/love/justice/whatever in the universe, when you could just speak about "order/goodness in the universe" and toss out the distracting baggage, but that's a whole 'nother boondoggle...]

[newcrasher]

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

You say you are still a Christian, but, from your descriptions of his specialness in the OP, it seems more as though you view him as merely a great teacher or philosopher than as some uniquely divine person. So, I'm curious: though you seem to have abandoned the usual concept of God as an intelligent being with superhuman powers, and apparently have no superstrong attachment anymore to the Bible, do you still believe in Jesus's virgin birth, his resurrection three days after his death, his performing the various miracles, etc.?

[I'm not saying you have to do those things to be allowed to call yourself Christian; I'm just curious. It does seem odd to me to cling to the word "God" for your very abstract conception of order/goodness/love/justice/whatever in the universe, when you could just speak about "order/goodness in the universe" and toss out the distracting baggage, but that's a whole 'nother boondoggle...]

ok. Posting now on my phone in a bar. Having a Sapporo befor I go to the bookstore. Please excuse poor puncuation...

I never hung my hat on the virgin birth. I feel much of Jesus HAS been packaged to fit the OT expectation)prophecy.

I do puzzle out the resurrection. if one were to acheive oneness with the universe (now I am a budhist?) would being resurrected be out of the realm? I mean I am already assuming a supernatural or at least superobservable aspect to the world. why limit that concept?

If I can come up with a word for god that better suits, and will not cause others consternation, I am open to that.

Also, I will remain active in my church, hopefully influencing them in some positive way. I will still profess to follow Christ, I am just not buying the dogma.

[cerberus]

You're sounding more like a Deist than a Christian.

[Kneepants Erasmus, the Humanist]

I was thinking Deism, as well. Maybe grab a copy of Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, and see if you dig that.

[vivalostwages]

You sound like a Christian Agnostic. Try this site: christianagnostic.com

I really enjoy the daily calendar writings on that site.

[newcrasher]

OK I am home now, new Dostoyevski in tow...and I am perusing agnosticchristian.com....

[cosmosdan]

I've been wondering my self how to express the spiritual journey without supporting the God, the distant being out there somewhere, concept.

I agree with this

But I think that God is love, and harmony, and rightness, and justice. He is the divine order of the universe. He is the goodness in the fabric of the cosmos that we all strain to grasp...atheists and theists alike.

When we "sin" we separate ourselves from God...that is we separate ourselves from the way the universe is meant to be. Most often I believe sin comes in the form of claiming some right for ourselves that requires us to deny the rights of another. When we spend $100 on a meal and pass the hungry person without a thought, we sin. When we destroy beauty for our own gain, we sin. When we kill, we sin. When we are apathetic to the needs of our brothers and sisters, we sin.

There is a way to be in harmony with each other and the world we live in. To be in tune with what is true and feel our connection with life which is love. Like the cells in a body working together we are individuals yet existing in the same body of life. In that sense our "health" depends on the individual cells fulfilling their intended roll in the body.

But I digress.

It's up to you but I doubt most Christians would call you a Christian. Even though I revere Christ and his teachings I decided my beliefs were too different from mainstream to call myself a Christian anymore. There was also too much being under the title that I really objected to.

Perhaps god is a decent alternative to "God" It could indicate a reverence and appreciation for the mystery of the transcendent "other" while also exhibiting a specific attempt to separate from the traditional view of a supernatural being that judges us.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by newcrasher

However I think there is a rightness in the universe worth seeking. Can i call that God? How about god?

Sure, but unless you assert that such rightness will be understood by all in the same way, all you are saying is that you have a personal definition of God. Which means that so does everyone else. Why call this "God?" Why not "perception?" Or " awareness?"

Also, saying that there is a rightness in the universe strongly implies that there is a wrongness, or at least a not-rightness, else why the search? This makes no sense. The universe just is.

[Indistinguishable]

Incidentally, you may care for some of the discussion in this thread on alternative conceptions of God as an abstract notion and not a particular personality, so to speak.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

God is product, packaged and sold by religions to suckers.

As is atheistic self-righteousness, only the salespeople are pretty much anyone who can pander to the baseless intellectual egotism of their marks, rather than a particular religion.

[Indistinguishable]

Yeah, and let's not forget all those smarmy peddlers of the cult of agnosticism.

[newcrasher]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Sure, but unless you assert that such rightness will be understood by all in the same way, all you are saying is that you have a personal definition of God. Which means that so does everyone else. Why call this "God?" Why not "perception?" Or " awareness?"

Also, saying that there is a rightness in the universe strongly implies that there is a wrongness, or at least a not-rightness, else why the search? This makes no sense. The universe just is.

I am not sure the "rightness" can ever be completely grasped. It is something to be sought, and this life is for that journey. Each person takes his own path to it.

I may have my own personal definition of god, but it is so pathetically limited that I can't begin to think I have it right. i must allow that others have the same capacity to experience god, and may define that experience in another way. This also leaves the possibility that some will seek their own will and call it god. Here is a difficulty - allowing for the variety in seeking/experiencing god, yet not being naive to the possibility that the concept can be used for great evil.

The universe "is". To say that it "just is" diminishes the fact that there is something in us all that seeks good.

The universe is playing the greatest song in the world in Aminor. We come in for our solo and we are in G#, and our guitar is not tuned very well. If we are at all concerned about getting the song right, we are going to need a tuning fork. Once we get our guitar tuned (or passably close) we then need to figure out what key the song is in. We may even figure that out, to a degree, only to find that before we can play the blazing brilliant solo this song deserves, we really need to go back and practice our scales.

The song is always playing in the background...bass thumping, drums beating an irresistable rhythm...inviting us to tune up and play...the chorus rises and falls...when it is our turn to contribute to the tune, will we be ready? Will we even be there? Will we care?

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by newcrasher

I am not sure the "rightness" can ever be completely grasped. It is something to be sought, and this life is for that journey. Each person takes his own path to it.

That's the problem. Human sacrifice seemed "right" to some people.

Here is a difficulty - allowing for the variety in seeking/experiencing god, yet not being naive to the possibility that the concept can be used for great evil.

The thing is, how can you possibly know what is evil and what is good, if all yo have to go on is your own perception?

The universe "is". To say that it "just is" diminishes the fact that there is something in us all that seeks good.

I meant "simply is," as in no need for further explication. As to "seeking good," I will again point out that two interpretations of "seeking good" can be necessarily mutually exclusive.

The universe is playing the greatest song in the world in Aminor. We come in for our solo and we are in G#, and our guitar is not tuned very well. If we are at all concerned about getting the song right, we are going to need a tuning fork. Once we get our guitar tuned (or passably close) we then need to figure out what key the song is in. We may even figure that out, to a degree, only to find that before we can play the blazing brilliant solo this song deserves, we really need to go back and practice our scales.

I won't try to respond to this metaphor directly, as there are too many loosely defined terms. I will ask, however, how you know this. How do you know that our guitars are not tuned properly? Maybe everyone is in perfect tune. What do you see about the world that suggests to you that everyone needs to pursue this search?

Originally Posted by HSHP

As is atheistic self-righteousness, only the salespeople are pretty much anyone who can pander to the baseless intellectual egotism of their marks, rather than a particular religion.

Can you provide any evidence that atheism is sold on a scale approaching one billionth of that of religion? Where are the coffers to match the Vatican's? Where are the billions of adherents? Where is the dogma? Where are the miracles? The demands that someone live his life just so?

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by newcrasher

The universe "is". To say that it "just is" diminishes the fact that there is something in us all that seeks good.

I don't think it diminishes our seeking good. We can still prefer to associate ourselves with the good part of a universe that "just is." In fact, I think that's probably a more noble pursuit; to acknowledge that our existence comprises both good and bad and to make an effort to be a part of the good despite the continuous presence of bad. There is no way to escape the effects of bad, but you can do your best to actively affect the good.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Sure, but unless you assert that such rightness will be understood by all in the same way, all you are saying is that you have a personal definition of God. Which means that so does everyone else. Why call this "God?" Why not "perception?" Or " awareness?"

Also, saying that there is a rightness in the universe strongly implies that there is a wrongness, or at least a not-rightness, else why the search? This makes no sense. The universe just is.

I think that is the point. Call it rightness, harmony, being in tune, whatever, eventually we all will be understood and felt, and lived in the same way.

Wrongness would be actions out of harmony with this universal understanding. Part of my feeling about it is that we are all connected beyond anything we can do to disconnect. So literally when we act to harm others we are harming ourselves as well.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

I think that is the point. Call it rightness, harmony, being in tune, whatever, eventually we all will be understood and felt, and lived in the same way.

Wrongness would be actions out of harmony with this universal understanding. Part of my feeling about it is that we are all connected beyond anything we can do to disconnect. So literally when we act to harm others we are harming ourselves as well.

Surely the harm is so unequal as to be meaningless. Idi Amin Dada should have been devoured many times over. Hitler should have been murdered six million times. You see where I am going with this. In your example, "harm" is a false equivalency.

And again, there is nothing to suggest that "harmony with the universe" does not entail actions that you perceive as very wrong, but others perceive as very right. Virtually anything can be described as being harmonious with the universe.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

And again, there is nothing to suggest that "harmony with the universe" does not entail actions that you perceive as very wrong, but others perceive as very right. Virtually anything can be described as being harmonious with the universe.

Prezactly. In fact, I'd say that you cannot have "harmony" without all of the elements of our existence. Aligning with the "good" in the world is a personal value decision, i.e., you may think abortion is bad and I may think it's good. Both value judgements are accurate.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

That's the problem. Human sacrifice seemed "right" to some people.

The thing is, how can you possibly know what is evil and what is good, if all yo have to go on is your own perception?

I meant "simply is," as in no need for further explication. As to "seeking good," I will again point out that two interpretations of "seeking good" can be necessarily mutually exclusive.

And the belief is that even though humans have different perceptions of good and evil, ultimately there is one true common good that is true for all. So we move forward on the journey to discover and live this truth. Along the way we share the journey with others. Although our perceptions are not exactly the same by sharing the journey and interacting we help each other move forward.

I won't try to respond to this metaphor directly, as there are too many loosely defined terms. I will ask, however, how you know this. How do you know that our guitars are not tuned properly? Maybe everyone is in perfect tune. What do you see about the world that suggests to you that everyone needs to pursue this search?

Seriously? The world seems in perfect harmony to you?

It's not a matter of knowing even though it can feel that way. That's where faith comes in. Faith in what is resonating within us. Faith in what we are learning about ourselves and experiencing in life. Faith in a sense of purpose and meaning that calls us forward.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

It's not a matter of knowing even though it can feel that way. That's where faith comes in. Faith in what is resonating within us. Faith in what we are learning about ourselves and experiencing in life. Faith in a sense of purpose and meaning that calls us forward.

Faith is not universal. I don't see how faith is part of "learning" and "experiencing." Can you elaborate on that?

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

And the belief is that even though humans have different perceptions of good and evil, ultimately there is one true common good that is true for all. So we move forward on the journey to discover and live this truth. Along the way we share the journey with others. Although our perceptions are not exactly the same by sharing the journey and interacting we help each other move forward.

The problem, as I have noted, is that the paths different humans choose to take can be diametrically opposed. Aztecs believed in ritualized murder/suicide, Christians find both to be abominations. It is all well and good to assert that we will all eventually end up in the same place, but if such divergent paths can lead there, what is the point in preferring one over another? For all you know, not seeking God is the best way; ignoring God completely the most perfect worship.

Seriously? The world seems in perfect harmony to you?

I never said that, and it does not take a very close reading of my post to realize this. What I did say is that "All of our guitars are in tune" is as likely as "All of our guitars need tuning." "Harmony" is so ill defined as to be useless.

It's not a matter of knowing even though it can feel that way. That's where faith comes in. Faith in what is resonating within us. Faith in what we are learning about ourselves and experiencing in life. Faith in a sense of purpose and meaning that calls us forward.

This statement: Nothing resonates in me, therefore I now know God, is completely consistent with your statement.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Surely the harm is so unequal as to be meaningless. Idi Amin Dada should have been devoured many times over. Hitler should have been murdered six million times. You see where I am going with this. In your example, "harm" is a false equivalency.

And again, there is nothing to suggest that "harmony with the universe" does not entail actions that you perceive as very wrong, but others perceive as very right. Virtually anything can be described as being harmonious with the universe.

In my admittedly imperfect understanding we are each responsible for our own state of being and direct action that springs from it. Hitler didn't personally kill six million people. He issued orders based on his own state of being, and each person involved along the way made a choice. What would he have been responsible for if nobody obeyed? A bad attitude?

Jesus indicated that hatred was the same as murder. Why? Because if we embrace and justify our hatred of others that becomes our state of being. There can be no harmony and no moving forward if hatred is in our hearts and we refrain from murder only under threat of law. Then we need only change the law to justify murder. Can you think of any examples where that has happened? If we truly are transformed within to feel our connections with others and we really see them as an extension of ourselves, a cell in the same body, hatred is eliminated.

and again, it's faith that there is indeed an ultimate truth and supreme good that is the same for all existence, that we are all moving toward. It's personal and subjective and so is the evidence that affirms faith. Interacting and touching others in a way that feels in tune with that faith.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

In my admittedly imperfect understanding we are each responsible for our own state of being and direct action that springs from it. Hitler didn't personally kill six million people. He issued orders based on his own state of being, and each person involved along the way made a choice. What would he have been responsible for if nobody obeyed? A bad attitude?

Oh, come on now. Is this response serious? Assuming it is, substitute John Wayne Gacy. Whatever harm came to him was tiny compared to the harm he caused others. He only died once, was not tortured, raped, etc.

Jesus indicated that hatred was the same as murder. Why? Because if we embrace and justify our hatred of others that becomes our state of being.

OK. Plug Hitler back into it.

There can be no harmony and no moving forward if hatred is in our hearts and we refrain from murder only under threat of law.

Unless the path to harmony involves murder. Who can say it doesn't? (With reference to the OP. Bear in mind that he proposes no named "God," so appeals to Jesus seem off point.)

Then we need only change the law to justify murder. Can you think of any examples where that has happened? If we truly are transformed within to feel our connections with others and we really see them as an extension of ourselves, a cell in the same body, hatred is eliminated.

Whatever does the law have to do with it? Are you suggesting that laws are by nature in harmony with the universe?

and again, it's faith that there is indeed an ultimate truth and supreme good that is the same for all existence, that we are all moving toward. It's personal and subjective and so is the evidence that affirms faith. Interacting and touching others in a way that feels in tune with that faith.

And again, I can hold that concept to be true and still hold that, for example, "Defeat of all our enemies is the ultimate good." What about a culture that believes that the greatest good a human can perform is to die in battle? Are the warriors not the ones closest to God?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

Faith is not universal. I don't see how faith is part of "learning" and "experiencing." Can you elaborate on that?

I'll try. In this thread we are discussing the different interpretations and value of faith.

it occurred to me that the faith as described in Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. doesn't have to be the faith that clings to beliefs even when existing evidence shows they are incorrect. It doesn't have to mean, "we're right and everyone who thinks differently is wrong" It doesn't have to mean "we're not changing our beliefs ever"
Faith can be that we act on what we perceive to be right and true now at this moment with whatever our concept of outcome might be. Each action and it's consequence, each experience brings new information for us to consider and process so that our next choice may be different because our understanding of what is right and true has changed.
That is what I prefer to call true faith rather than the perverted meanings it has taken on with all the negative connotations. We can hold beliefs provisionally knowing that we have more to learn and understand , but act on faith with the beliefs we hold right now. That is a faith that is universal for all and embraces learning and progress.
It's the universal and progressive nature of thios faith that makes me prefer to call it true faith.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

I'll try. In this thread we are discussing the different interpretations and value of faith.

it occurred to me that the faith as described in Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. doesn't have to be the faith that clings to beliefs even when existing evidence shows they are incorrect. It doesn't have to mean, "we're right and everyone who thinks differently is wrong" It doesn't have to mean "we're not changing our beliefs ever"
Faith can be that we act on what we perceive to be right and true now at this moment with whatever our concept of outcome might be. Each action and it's consequence, each experience brings new information for us to consider and process so that our next choice may be different because our understanding of what is right and true has changed.
That is what I prefer to call true faith rather than the perverted meanings it has taken on with all the negative connotations. We can hold beliefs provisionally knowing that we have more to learn and understand , but act on faith with the beliefs we hold right now. That is a faith that is universal for all and embraces learning and progress.
It's the universal and progressive nature of thios faith that makes me prefer to call it true faith.

Got it, with the exception of certainty in that which we do not see. I think that kind of faith probably is universal. However, I'd probably clarify the term as "non-spiritual faith" so as not to muddy the waters. In a thread that discusses the god concept, it would be easy to confuse the two.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

The problem, as I have noted, is that the paths different humans choose to take can be diametrically opposed. Aztecs believed in ritualized murder/suicide, Christians find both to be abominations. It is all well and good to assert that we will all eventually end up in the same place, but if such divergent paths can lead there, what is the point in preferring one over another? For all you know, not seeking God is the best way; ignoring God completely the most perfect worship.

If you read my response to Kalhoun you'll see more of how this works. IMHO of course. We each are responsible to act on what we believe to be true. Our true actions lead to new experiences that lead to new perceptions of what is true. Each path is unique to the individual for only they can look within and determine what they perceive to be true. Years ago I was a Christian and was being true to my beliefs of that time. Now I no longer embrace those beliefs and although my beliefs are quite different, at each point I was being true to myself. So for some being an atheist is indeed the true path for them. For others it is not. Still, we can both be headed for the same destination.
I find it amazing and beautiful that there can be a oneness and yet we can pursue very different paths to get there.
I think preferring one path over the other is inevitable for the individual. What we need to understand is that we don't know the the proper path for others.

I never said that, and it does not take a very close reading of my post to realize this. What I did say is that "All of our guitars are in tune" is as likely as "All of our guitars need tuning." "Harmony" is so ill defined as to be useless.

Did you grasp my meaning when I asked if you thought the world was in harmony? if you did then it must not be so ill defined.

This statement: Nothing resonates in me, therefore I now know God, is completely consistent with your statement.

This is meaningless to me. Does it mean something to you?

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Can you provide any evidence that atheism is sold on a scale approaching one billionth of that of religion? Where are the coffers to match the Vatican's? Where are the billions of adherents? Where is the dogma? Where are the miracles? The demands that someone live his life just so?

You're only trying to make it about scale because you seem to have realized that you don't have a leg to stand on ideologically.

[Kalhoun]

I don't see atheism as a "product" but I cannot say the same for religion. Atheism is the lack of product. The books on the subject are merely an attempt to show religion as the snake-oil operation it is. More comparable to a "truth in advertising" campaign. For instance, you may have been taking a vitamin supplement for many years. The PSA is simply saying that there is no evidence that the supplement performs as advertised.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Oh, come on now. Is this response serious? Assuming it is, substitute John Wayne Gacy. Whatever harm came to him was tiny compared to the harm he caused others. He only died once, was not tortured, raped, etc.

I'm pretty sure I never indicated that actions received had to be the exact equivalent of actions actions committed. Where are you getting this?

OK. Plug Hitler back into it.

If you have a point to make please spell it out. Hitler's state of being on it's own may have been no different than others who never became rulers. It was only through interaction with others and their cooperation, or their fear of opposing, that allowed what happened to happen. He is responsible for his own choices but not the choices of those that cooperated. Not the choices of those who might have opposed him earlier but looked the other way.

Unless the path to harmony involves murder. Who can say it doesn't? (With reference to the OP. Bear in mind that he proposes no named "God," so appeals to Jesus seem off point.)

You made the Jesus God association not I. Keep in mind that the belief is that there is a universal truth, and harmony that applies to all. A person may indeed feel that murder is their truth, perhaps for reasons of justice. That choice brings it's own consequences.

Whatever does the law have to do with it? Are you suggesting that laws are by nature in harmony with the universe?

Not at all. Laws change. IMO they reflect the state of being of those who follow them, change them, enforce them with their particular bias. Laws can make an invasion of another country and the killing of it's citizens legal, but not moral or in harmony with universal truth.
The point I was trying to make is that when we transform the inner person to see and live our connection with all, that will be reflected in our laws as well.

And again, I can hold that concept to be true and still hold that, for example, "Defeat of all our enemies is the ultimate good." What about a culture that believes that the greatest good a human can perform is to die in battle? Are the warriors not the ones closest to God?

Am I denying widely varied perceptions of what is good exist? No. IMO universal truth is, the true enemy and the true battle is within, and once we conquer that we understand that other people are not the enemy, but just fellow humans fighting the same inner battle. If that is indeed universal truth all other philosophies and beliefs lead there. Believe it or not.
Who's to say you ask? I'm to say....for me. You're to say for you. Nice arrangement ain't it?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

Got it, with the exception of certainty in that which we do not see. I think that kind of faith probably is universal. However, I'd probably clarify the term as "non-spiritual faith" so as not to muddy the waters. In a thread that discusses the god concept, it would be easy to confuse the two.

Oh no. By true faith I meant spiritual faith for those who embrace spirituality, and fortunately, a faith we can share with those who don't care for the spiritual label. Ain't that great?

My preference, as impossible as it seems, is to try and correct the perversion of the definition of faith. An emotional need to believe something that evidence indicates is not true, is not faith. So lets stop calling it that.

"What we do not see" in this case may be a metaphor for what we do not {yet} understand. Looking at the world as it is now I might not have a lot of evidence that striving for love and truth are worthwhile efforts, yet, I can still act with certainty that the effort is indeed worthy.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

I don't see atheism as a "product" but I cannot say the same for religion. Atheism is the lack of product. The books on the subject are merely an attempt to show religion as the snake-oil operation it is. More comparable to a "truth in advertising" campaign. For instance, you may have been taking a vitamin supplement for many years. The PSA is simply saying that there is no evidence that the supplement performs as advertised.

There can't be much doubt that a huge part of religion is a product to be bought and sold. I might say that with books like The God Delusion and Atheist Manifesto, atheism can become a product as well, but honestly it is a million miles away from what religion has been doing for generations.

I also think it's a mistake to think that product is the only element of religion which is why I dismiss Clothahump's blanket generalizations. For many people it is the vehicle for their spiritual journey and their relationship with however they perceive god. Their sincerity and whatever growth and benefit comes from that is not altered by the existence of the product of religion.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

Oh no. By true faith I meant spiritual faith for those who embrace spirituality, and fortunately, a faith we can share with those who don't care for the spiritual label. Ain't that great?

My preference, as impossible as it seems, is to try and correct the perversion of the definition of faith. An emotional need to believe something that evidence indicates is not true, is not faith. So lets stop calling it that.

"What we do not see" in this case may be a metaphor for what we do not {yet} understand. Looking at the world as it is now I might not have a lot of evidence that striving for love and truth are worthwhile efforts, yet, I can still act with certainty that the effort is indeed worthy.

Wait a minute. Spiritual-based faith has nothing in common with faith that is based in the real world. A spiritualist may be able to grasp both types of faith, but they cannot be one and the same or agreed upon by both the spiritualist and the humanist. It's impossible.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

There can't be much doubt that a huge part of religion is a product to be bought and sold. I might say that with books like The God Delusion and Atheist Manifesto, atheism can become a product as well, but honestly it is a million miles away from what religion has been doing for generations.

I also think it's a mistake to think that product is the only element of religion which is why I dismiss Clothahump's blanket generalizations. For many people it is the vehicle for their spiritual journey and their relationship with however they perceive god. Their sincerity and whatever growth and benefit comes from that is not altered by the existence of the product of religion.

I am using the words "god" and "religion" interchangeably here (though I realize some people do not). In that respect, god is the product and books written by atheists are the PSA.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

I am using the words "god" and "religion" interchangeably here (though I realize some people do not). In that respect, god is the product and books written by atheists are the PSA.

PSA?

I associate product with a desire to sell for profit. Religion or atheism.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

Wait a minute. Spiritual-based faith has nothing in common with faith that is based in the real world. A spiritualist may be able to grasp both types of faith, but they cannot be one and the same or agreed upon by both the spiritualist and the humanist. It's impossible.

I strongly disagree and I think it's a crucial point in finding a common ground that allows all religions and those who prefer no religion or spiritual labels to come to a place of mutual respect and cooperation in progress.

I might agree that it is impossible to reconcile what I would call false faith and the kind of faith I'm talking about. True faith can and must consider the available evidence. That doesn't prevent people from reaching different conclusions. When available evidence is denied or distorted to support and sustain a belief that is false faith. Not faith at all IMO.
Example; God belief is faith. Since it can be neither proved ot disproved people are free to fall on either side of the argument and still be true to themselves. Nobody is denying a preponderance of evidence. They are just interpreting their experiences differently.

Why do you say it's impossible?

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

You're only trying to make it about scale because you seem to have realized that you don't have a leg to stand on ideologically.

I take it that the answer is "no," then?

I have asked you for some evidence that the marketing of atheism is anyway equivalent to the marketing of religion. Ideology need not enter in to it. I have made no assertions. I have no ideology, and therefore it does not need propping up.

I'll give you another chance to answer. Can you provide any evidence thatatheism is sold on a scale approaching one billionth of that of religion? Where are the coffers to match the Vatican's? Where are the billions of adherents? Where is the dogma? Where are the miracles? The demands that someone live his life just so?

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

I'm pretty sure I never indicated that actions received had to be the exact equivalent of actions actions committed. Where are you getting this?

Where are you getting that I referred to an exact equivalent?

If you cannot debate without this kind of shenanigans, why bother? You are the one who said that when we harm others we harm ourselves.

So literally when we act to harm others we are harming ourselves as well.

What did you mean, if not some kind of equivalency? (Not exact equivalent.) One harm is a bazooka blast, the other a bee sting. Hitler tortures six million to death and only dies once, at his own hand? You stretch the meaning of harm beyond useful purpose. What six million harms did he suffer, and how did he manage to do it? You mention harm. What do you mean by it?

If you have a point to make please spell it out. Hitler's state of being on it's own may have been no different than others who never became rulers. It was only through interaction with others and their cooperation, or their fear of opposing, that allowed what happened to happen. He is responsible for his own choices but not the choices of those that cooperated. Not the choices of those who might have opposed him earlier but looked the other way.

Bah. Sheer flummery. He ordered the deaths of six million. Their blood is on his hands. According to you, Jesus said hatred equals murder. He hated the six million. Ergo, he harmed six million. What consequent six million harms did he suffer?

You made the Jesus God association not I. Keep in mind that the belief is that there is a universal truth, and harmony that applies to all. A person may indeed feel that murder is their truth, perhaps for reasons of justice. That choice brings it's own consequences.

I never mentioned Jesus until you did. Can you please read more carefully, so we do not have to go over he same ground again and again?

Keep in mind that the belief is that there is a universal truth, and harmony that applies to all. A person may indeed feel that murder is their truth, perhaps for reasons of justice. That choice brings it's own consequences.

Stop evading the question. Stipulated: There is a universal truth and harmony that applies to us all. Stipulated: Each must find his own path. How do you know that murder is not the way to harmony and truth? It worked for the Aztecs. Were they wrong? Perhaps the only consequences were to be that much closer to harmony. Unless you mean that murder brings negative consequences. Do yo?

The point I was trying to make is that when we transform the inner person to see and live our connection with all, that will be reflected in our laws as well.

So laws are a reflection of those who make them? No argument here. What has that to do with the path to harmony?

Who's to say you ask? I'm to say....for me. You're to say for you. Nice arrangement ain't it?

If I were to murder someone close to you, because to me murder is the surest path to universal harmony, you would accept that I have simply taken a step along that path?

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

Did you grasp my meaning when I asked if you thought the world was in harmony? if you did then it must not be so ill defined.

No need for a clear definition of harmony. This is more of your rhetorical trickery. The statement you responded to said nothing about perfect harmony, and my response reflected that. You could just as well have asked whether conjunctions persist in applesauce. To pretend that somehow we have come together on an understanding of "perfect harmony," when such an understanding has nothing to do with the exchange, is, frankly, dishonest.

This is meaningless to me. Does it mean something to you?

It means what it says. My statement is not inconsistent with your statement.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

I take it that the answer is "no," then?

The answer is, "Your question is loaded and based on a blanket generalization."

I have asked you for some evidence that the marketing of atheism is anyway equivalent to the marketing of religion. Ideology need not enter in to it. I have made no assertions. I have no ideology, and therefore it does not need propping up.

Of course it's equivalent. Atheistic marketing may not be on SCALE with religious "marketing," but that's certainly not for its lack of trying. The more people one "reaches" with one's message, the more books one sells. This statement is as true with Bibles as it is with "The God Delusion." Bibles are just more popular- which is the very thing you're trying to rectify, isn't it? And the more popular the atheistic message gets, the more rich atheists there will be. It's exactly the same.

And of course you have an ideology. Your ideology is that mine is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

I'll give you another chance to answer.

If you can do so without the snark, you'd be better served.

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Can you provide any evidence thatatheism is sold on a scale approaching one billionth of that of religion? Where are the coffers to match the Vatican's?

Atheism's commercial pull is not equal to that of religion's. But again, that's not for lack of trying.

You're making a broad generalization about religion and then refusing to see how it applies equally to atheism. You say that the religions are in it for the money and the message is a means to that end. Based on your parameters, the same exact thing could be said about atheism, with only your assurances to distinguish them.

Where are the billions of adherents?

Aren't you working on that? In the name of "educating people," of course.

Where is the dogma?

"There is no God" sounds pretty dogmatic to me.

Where are the miracles?

Well, there can't be any miracles in atheism by definition, so I suppose I'm caught here.

The demands that someone live his life just so?

You think atheists don't demand this of the religious?

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

Well, there can't be any miracles in atheism by definition, so I suppose I'm caught here.

Well the whole aspect of the big bang and evolution would be pretty much a miracle without a God to guide it. The chance of it happening on it's own is basically less then turning water into wine.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

Well the whole aspect of the big bang and evolution would be pretty much a miracle without a God to guide it. The chance of it happening on it's own is basically less then turning water into wine.

Or it was inevitable. On a universal scale probabilities are irrelevant. There is what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. Whether or not it is unlikely doesn't matter if it did in fact occur. That means that it was so likely that it actually happened. No one knows the why or the wherefore really, we'd have to be able to observe prior to the Big Bang to verify that.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

Well the whole aspect of the big bang and evolution would be pretty much a miracle without a God to guide it. The chance of it happening on it's own is basically less then turning water into wine.

When you have an eternity to work with, unless something is totally impossible it is eventually guaranteed to happen.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

Of course it's equivalent.

# S: (n) equivalent (a person or thing equal to another in value or measure or force or effect or significance etc) "send two dollars or the equivalent in stamps" From here. Value, measure, force, or effect. Vast differences of scale preclude equivalency.

Atheistic marketing may not be on SCALE with religious "marketing," but that's certainly not for its lack of trying.

Different degrees of scale mean no equivalency, by definition. Effort is meaningless, unless you suggest that, for example, two people who extend identical efforts but reach vastly different outcomes have achieved equivalent success.

The more people one "reaches" with one's message, the more books one sells. This statement is as true with Bibles as it is with "The God Delusion."

I suspect you've got that turned around, but, no matter. In as much as "selling Bibles" equals "selling religion to the masses" you have a point. Which is to say, barely at all.

Bibles are just more popular- which is the very thing you're trying to rectify, isn't it?

Am I? There is no evidence of that in this thread. I think you are overreaching.

And the more popular the atheistic message gets, the more rich atheists there will be. It's exactly the same.

Wow. "More rich Christians" is the goal of Christianity. I had really not suspected such a bold admission. Bravo sir.

And of course you have an ideology. Your ideology is that mine is incorrect.

Again, you overreach yourself. You have no basis for such a statement, merely your own assumptions.

You're making a broad generalization about religion and then refusing to see how it applies equally to atheism. You say that the religions are in it for the money and the message is a means to that end. Based on your parameters, the same exact thing could be said about atheism, with only your assurances to distinguish them.

Actually, all I have done is question your assertions. I never said that religions were in it for the money. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

Aren't you working on that? In the name of "educating people," of course.

I'm not working on anything at all, but even so, "working on it" and "having it" are two different things to most folks.

"There is no God" sounds pretty dogmatic to me.

Until the existence of God is asserted, a denial of such existence would be incoherent.

You think atheists don't demand this of the religious?

I don't think atheism demands anything of anyone. Shall we judge Christianity by the Christians?

[F. U. Shakespeare]

Originally Posted by Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

You think atheists don't demand this of the religious?

Most atheists I know just want the religious to leave them alone. While there can be principled differences over where this crosses over into telling religious people how to live their lives, it ain't the same thing.

I don't see how the absence of "In God We Trust" from the currency* would impact believers' lives any more than my being unable to buy liquor on Sundays when I visit my hometown impacts mine.

* I'm an atheist, and I don't advocate the motto being removed.