What about the theory of Evolution with respect to Atheism? Would you consider Atheism a form of religion? Of course we have Buddhism in this regard, which is both a form of Atheism and, religion.

Geetings sadashivan, and welcome to the Dionysus Forums!


Note: This thread was split from the thread, What is religion and how did it exist?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

No. Atheism has no beliefs. To borrow a phrase, "if atheism is a religion, then 'not-collecting-stamps' is a hobby."

Buddhism is not necessarily a religion, but a philosophy, though certain forms of Buddhism involve belief in the supernatural, e.g. karma.

So basically by implying a "lack of belief" in something suggests you have no opinion on the matter. Am I correct? If so, then why do so many "Atheists" tend to mock and ridicule those who partake of religion if, in fact it wasn't some sort of counter-belief? Surely, if you have nothing to say on the matter, then why all the noise? Why the need to defend yourselves against that which has no implications or, doesn't mean anything? ... Because all religious folks are nuts? Which, of course is merely a stipulation of your belief, because as an Atheist you do not know who holds a valid belief and who doesn't. So, to insist that somebody else's beliefs are incorrect, suggests that you in fact do know better (or believe) which, has nothing to do with the "lack of belief."

Buddhism is still in effect a belief-system, correct?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

You are incorrect. My opinion is that religious beliefs have no evidence for them. However, I do not offer an alternate belief.

Those that do mock and ridicule religious persons, and I admit there are some, do so because they find that belief without evidence is silly. Also, note, that most religions make statements as to how their version of God operates. In all cases I have observed, those statements are totally unsupported, and in many cases quite self-contradictatory, such as the notion of a totally loving, omnipotent God who allows natural disasters to occur.

When a religious person fails or refuses to recognize these contradictions, it is a temptation to scorn their lack of wisdom. I try not to do that, but I know some who do, just as I know many, if not most, religious persons who scorn atheists.
Because of people who make incorrect statements about my beliefs. They are, in effect, assigning me beliefs and I do not wish to have beliefs assigned to me. You saw Human say that atheists said there was a 100% chance that there is no God. That is incorrect, and I consider it worth my time to correct such people.

Would you stay silent while I made incorrect statements about your beliefs? I don't think so.
No, most religious persons are not nuts, nor would I ever say such things. Here is another case of you seeming to decide what I think. Why do you do that?

However, some specific beliefs can be shown to be invalid. People used to believe the Earth was flat and that the Bible supported that belief. That belief has since been shown invalid. Interestingly, many people now have decided that the Bible supports a more-or-less spherical Earth. What changed?
No, it has to do with examining and testing those specific beliefs.

However, I think you are using the word "belief" in multiple ways. "Religious beliefs" generally refer to the dogma and teachings of a specific religion. However, beliefs can also mean "opinions", which of course, we all have, but they are not necessarily religious. If you want to use belief to only mean "opinion", then you must never again say that you "know" anything. Can you do that?
I am not that well versed on Buddhism, but I would guess you could call it a belief system. As I understand it, Buddhism does not require religious dogma, though some choose to incorporate it anyway.

What other alternative can we offer to the notion of a "yes," than a "no?" In which case I ask, do you believe in God? Yes or no? Now if you were to say you simply don't know, that would be one thing, and more in line with the claim you are trying to make. However, the moment you step across the line and begin to voice your opinion, you begin to speak from the standpoint of what you do know or, think you know which, is a matter of belief.

And yet what if God really does exist? Well, we've just validated the basis for religion. Granted, that when it's presented in a way that makes it sound like a fairy tale which, requires one to believe in it blindly, you've just set the people up to become gullible and, provided an excellent means by which the government (or church) can subjugate the masses. Which, is clearly an aspect of its abuse. And yet the Bible warns us of this very thing when it says, "Many will come in my name to lead many astray." ~ Matthew 24:5 Nor do we need to look any further to understand the type of evil that lurks behind those who abuse religious authority when Jeusus rebukes the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. Which, is an excellent chapter by the way.

But then again maybe Human is speaking about his or her general experience with Atheists who, will insinuate the fact, that is, until you challenge them about it (I've found that most will back off), that God doesn't exist. While I too have experieced this type of behavior, more often than not.

Well, that's a two-way street I'm afraid.

Except when I continue to hear that there's no foundation for religion and, that I might be just a little bit off my rocker, in an attempt to start my own cult or something -- hey, who knows? -- then yes, I suppose I've been set up to believe as such.

So, what does that have to do with the Bible? It sounds to me more like politics which, of course should not be mixed with religion.

And yet because someone may not be able to furnish the kind of evidence that would satisfy what you require (empirical evidence), does not mean their beliefs are entirely unfounded.

As I have stated elsewhere, human beings are nothing but, creatures of belief. If not, why do we have such a hard time determining what absolutes are if, our beliefs (in them) weren't merely relative? Albeit there's only one sun in the sky isn't there? And only one earth that we inhabit (in relation to the sun), right? So in that sense the absoluteness of our own unique situation (reality) does exist.

How can man effectively organize anything, without a set of beliefs?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

To answer that question, I would have to know what you mean by "God". As you are well aware, there are many different concepts of God. Tell me what you think God is and I will tell you whether or not I believe in it.

But I admit that it is impossible to know every different permutation that God might exist. Since I have not examined every possibility, I cannot say for sure that none of them are believable. I can only say that none that I have heard yet are believable.
And what if God exists, but he hates Christians, or people in general?You can say "what if" to absolutely anything, and it answers nothing and "validates" nothing.
LOL. I have a problem with people who quote the Bible and then say "we don't need to look any further". I say, "Always look further. Never stop looking."

But even Christians cannot agree on what constitutes abuse of religious authority. Some Christians think the Pope is the epitome of abuse of religious authority.

In my mind, if anyone ever uses God as the source of authority, then that is abuse of religious power. Nobody knows the mind of God, so no one has the right to speak for Him. If He wants to talk to me, He doesn't need a middleman.

Beware of anyone who says, "I just talked to God, and He told me to tell you..."

Or perhaps thats just how he and you interpret it. You seem to have formed some definite ideas about what atheists think, many of which are wrong. I'll make a deal with you. I'll try not to tell you what you think if you try not to tell me what I think. This includes saying things like, "In other words, what you are saying is..." Instead of telling me what I am saying, why don't you ask me what I am saying. I'll try to afford you the same courtesy.
Can you show me where I have told you what you believe? Honestly, I'd like you to tell me what you believe. Try to stay away from metaphor and allegory when you are doing this. It just confuses things. Be as explicit as possible.
Does that happen to you a lot? Have you tried to evaluate why? I must say I am having a difficult time making sense out of the way you speak. You swap metaphors with literal meaning. You change the way you define words in mid-sentence. Yeah, I'll give you points for poetry, but it's like the poetry of Wallace Stevens. At first it is just a jumble of seemingly unrelated words. If you pierce deeply enough, it starts to be intelligible. This style works well for poetry (can you tell I am a poetry lover?), but it is simply awful for trying to communicate a point clearly.

But I have not said you are off your rocker or a cultist, and I will not, unless there is sufficient evidence. I hope you won't provide me with that evidence.
The shape of the earth is not politics. It is science, and I'll agree (strongly) that religion shouldn't be mixed with science. It always makes a mess of things.

Well, yes it does, actually. That is the meaning of the word "unfounded". If a court finds that charges are "unfounded" that means that they are not based on credible evidence. The same is true here.
We have a hard time determining what absolutes are because we have no examples of anything absolute. For example, your statement about the sun (there you go with that allegory again ) There is more than one sun in the sky. There are millions, perhaps billions. You speak of the one star closest to you as if it were the only one. You speak of the sky as if it ended at your range of vision. You do not even have any way of telling if the situation on Earth is unique, yet you speak of it as if it were "absolutely" true. Can you see why I don't buy absolutes?

Okay, I have beliefs, in that my investigations on earth have caused me to favor some paths and explanations over others. What I don't have is dogma. If it makes you feel better to crow about what atheists "believe", then go ahead. I believe that beliefs should change constantly. But then, if I believed that, then I would have to change that belief, right? See what happens when you mix definitions?

Well, I just looked up what atheism means in my native language (norwegian).
I will translate it to English for you:

Atheism: A denial of a God who exists.

Atheist: A person who disclaim that it exists a God.

If the word in norwegian that is being translated to atheist in English, has a different meaning than atheist in the english language, I don't know.
But since you pointed it out, I don't doubt it.

It seems there is literally 2 different kinds of atheism in the english language, in contrast to my native language norwegian.
I did a search in Wikipedia, and I found 'Weak atheism' and 'Strong atheism'.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

(Read below "Types of atheism")

So pherhaps a incoherent translate to norwegian to english happened as a result of incoherent woordbooks.
Maybe you have misunderstood what I meant.

Anyway, the reason I started the Atheism thread, is because I do not believe it exists any atheists due to the literal sense 100 % doubt who it means (I think) in norwegian.

You are correct about that, Human, the dictionaries do indeed give those definitions to atheism, and indeed, there are a few atheists who take the possition that God is impossible. However, if you actually talk to atheists, I think you will find that "strong atheists" are relatively few and they usually are the ones who have become atheists because of a bad experience with religion, not because they have carefully considered their position.

I find that people on both sides of the religion issue who have given good consideration to the nature of things, will avoid absolutes. If being totally honest, they will admit that nothing can be know "for sure".

But this sort of thing happens a lot when people try to characterize individuals by group traits (or perceived group traits). I'm quite sure that you and many Christians out there have heard stuff that begins with, "How can you believe...", which starts out with a statement of your belief, completely without knowing what your belief is.

But if you discuss things with atheists, I think what you will find is that the overwhelming majority practice what your dictionary calls "weak atheism".

And I think your English is excellent. You just have incomplete dictionaries.

God is the Creator. The Universe is both the manifestation of God and, God's creation at the same time. We are all part of this Universe, which is of God. That's a pretty generic explanation for God don't you think?

God is the cause, of which everything is the effect. So, how is it possible for the creation to be aware of its Creator if, it wasn't given by the Creator in order for it to do so? Perhaps this is why we've been given such large brains?

Why should God despise anything which is of His creation? If He wasn't benevolent, how would the Universe hold itself together?

I take it you didn't bother to read the chapter then? That's too bad, it pretty much spells the whole thing out in no uncertain terms. Which, I think most "non-religious" folks would find pretty refreshing coming from the Bible.

Yes, when we speak about organized religion we begin to speak about the abuse of power. Whether it's the Roman Catholics or, the Protestants.

Are you saying it's not possible for Him to speak to you then? Or, if He does speak to you, what do you think He might say? To go talk His people perhaps?

Do you mean like Moses, or Jesus or, like one of the Old Testament prophets? Yes, you have to be very careful, and the Bible reiterates this when it says, "Many will come in my name to lead many astray."

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

That's unfortunate, because the very fact that any script appears on your computer screen at all, automatically presumes that it knows who it's talking to. Why do I feel like you're putting words into my mouth in other words? It can't be helped, because you and I are not the same people. So what else can you do, except deal with it.

Eh, the only folks who seem to have a real problem here are the hyper-analytical types.

For the most part it depends on where I post. If I post on the JREF Forums for example, I get nothing but one reply after another, that I have to deal with in this manner.

Regardless, you could just be biased in your views.

Albeit politics will try and define the shape of the earth, whether it's the political leanings of a religious institution or not.

Yes, but who or exactly what is on trial here? God? Or, what we determine about God? Because if God does exist, he's certainly not the one who's on trial. And if we think he is, then it's merely a political ploy on our part which, we will ultimately not get away with. Don't you just love it?

So, if what we believe is merely relative, what is it relative to? That which is even less relative? If so, then it will ultimately lead us down the path to that which is relative to nothing. Which is to say, there is no standard by which anything is based.

Well, considering that we never experience the same thing twice, you might have a point.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Yes, that's generic all right. So generic as to be totally useless. It says nothing about the characteristics of God. How did He create it? Is he still working on it? If so, what is He doing? How do you know? All I can say about your definition is, I have no evidence that the universe has a creator, so I see no reason to belive in your "generic god". If you can provide me some evidence, I'm willing to change my mind, but it will have to be real evidence, not your own human, and therefore fallible, logic.
If the creation is "aware" of its creator, then it has a funny way of showing it. You'd think that we would all be "aware" of the same thing, yet there is no consensus on what this creator is like. Wars have even been fought over this issue. So I'm unimpressed by anyones "awareness", since they can't seem to get their stories straight.

And if the big brain is so important, why do so few things in the universe have one? And why is it such a recent development in the history of Earth? It sounds like you are just patting yourself on the back for being so smart. Humans may wind up wrecking this marvelous planet because of our big brains. I'm not ready to conclude that this is a good thing. But, being a human, I still have hope for us to start using that big brain wisely. Religion seems to be a waste of perfectly good brainpower that could be used to solve our problems, rather than inventing unsupportable scenarios.

By your logic, He wouldn't. But you have to admit that God's logic could be different. After all, he allows evil to exist, which seems totally stupid to me. But religious people tell me we don't know God's plan. That admission means that all of their assumptions about what God wants are just that. Assumptions. Unless I hear it directly from God, I will regard it a human, and therefore fallible, interpretation.
Actually, I've read the entire bible. As the gospels go, Matthew is a little more coherent than some, but still full of head-scratchers. For example that stuff in Matthew 7:1 "Judge not less ye should be judged". Does that mean we should not judge anyone? We should not have opinions and beliefs about other people? That is not only stupid, its impossible.

But I've never really understood why the gospels have to tell the same story multiple times. That just opens the story up to internal contradictions, making all the accounts less believable.
Not just organized religion. Any time a person uses religion, be it a well known sect or not, it opens the potential for abuse. This is not to say all people abuse religion. It is only to say it is possible.
If God really is all powerful, then speaking with me should be a piece of cake for Him. The fact that He hasn't done so makes Him less beleivable, in my opinion. I always hear other people talking about how they have spoken with God. Oddly, God seems to tell all of them different things. Is God deliberately trying to confuse us, or do you think it is possible that some of these people haven't actually talked to God, but just imagine they have?

If I were to imagine I was speaking to God, I'd hope He'd say something like, "Take care of this world. I don't have any spares handy." But of course, that would just be me imprinting my own feelings and calling it "God" in order to give my words the air of authority. You don't suppose that humans have ever done this, do you?
...or the Pope or Pat Robertson or Oral Roberts or Billy Graham or Jim Baker or Jim Jones...

You can fill in the list with the names of any "men of God" you choose. Each one claims to have a hot-line to God, yet each has a slightly different message. In some cases, greatly different. Which ones are "leading us astray" and which ones are not? How can you tell? Why should I believe any one of them? Why should I believe you? If there is a God, He is perfectly capable of talking to me himself. The fact that He has chosen not to do so says to me that people are simply making this up to be compatible with what they already believed. It is a very human thing to do, to pretend you have friends in high places.

What knows? The computer? Sorry, Iacchus, but you're not making sense.
I gave you an example of you putting words into my mouth. Can you give me an example of where I have done that to you? Really, I want to know so I can refrain from doing it.
I do not see why two very different people cannot have a discussion without making assumptions about what the other person believes. Yes, I can deal with it, but if you tell me you intend to be rude because you can't help it, then it will certainly affect how polite I am to you. And that is a shame.
Is there something wrong with being "hyper-analytical"? If you are trying to establish the truth of a statement, then what are you to base your evaluation on other than the statement itself? If you tell me that the things you say may not be true, but just metaphors, then you will understand if I don't regard them as truths.
I don't understand. Are you upset because your posts get a lot of negative attention? If so, why do you post there?
I am biased in my views. We all are, based on our life experiences. I recognize this. But I like to think I know what my biases are and try to avoid making them my only way of looking at things.

If you are saying that people will use their position and power to try to force or persuade others to accept their point of view, I agree. Everything has an overlay of "politics" in that sense. But when people do this based solely on their religious dogma, then I would place it more in the province of religion than politics. A good example is the stem cell controversy. People oppose stem cell research purely because of religious beliefs, but they use politicians to do their dirty work. I still regard it as primarily a religious controversy.

What is "on trial" is your description of God. Is it accurate? If so, then where is the evidence? If you have no evidence, then your description of God is "unfounded".
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Essentially, that is true. There is no standard. I believe that humans have evolved morality because it was advantageous to the species. After all, a species that kills itself off is not very successful. So I think that all morality eventually falls back to "what is good for people". It is a version of the old "golden rule". But we don't always agree what is good for people. Some people see what is good for people in the short run, like making their tribe increase, and others look a longer picture, like making sure we have an earth that will support human life. Who is right? It depends on who you ask. It is relative to what they believe is good for people.

But if we want to be brutally honest, our morality is very unfair and sometimes deadly to other species. Is it moral to kill animals for food? By my moral code it is, because it is good for people. By others' moral codes it is not.

In my opinion, religion evolved because those who believed in certain moral codes needed enforcement powers. Since they couldn't be on hand to enforce morality, they invented a God who would do the enforcing. That way, all you had to do was make people believe in God, and they would follow whatever moral code you said that God supported.

As you well know, that moral code has changed drastically over the years. (Read Leviticus if you disbelieve me.) Religion has changed accordingly. You can see the changes that have occurred in our lifetimes. It will continue to change as the world changes, and it should, because "what is good for people" changes constantly.

Is the glass half empty? Or, is it half full? Yes, I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

Could life exist without diversity? Could society function without diversity? Will the sun continue to shine, albeit a diversity of life has sprung up in accord with it? So, why does there have to be only one interpretation of God? Why are people, although biologically the same (otherwise they wouldn't be able to breed) so divergent in their views?

Exactly! Why have we been given the propensity to ask why?


I believe the term you're referring to here is "dualism." Indeed, there's nothing about life which does not oscillate (vibrate) between various extremes. This is the whole nature of the Yin and Yang.

I think what that means is not to despise or hate people. And, to the extent that you do, others will have a reason to return the favor.

And what's wrong with a divergence of views? If, not to paint a more accurate picture? Is it better to have more than one witness at a murder trial? I would think so, so long as they pretty much paint the same picture and were truly eye-witnesses.

And yet what are the elected officials in government, if not the chosen mouthpiece of the people? Just because God chooses someone as His mouthpiece does not make it improper. Of course it would all be contingent upon the fact that God exists or not.

If you can say such a thing without being impudent you might have a point.

I couln't help but imagine Him saying the same thing, about the state of the planet that is. In fact this is one of the things I would advocate if I had the authority to do so.

I personally don't subscribe to any of these folks. Matter-of-fact I don't even go to church, nor do I hold any afilliations with anyone else.

Albeit one thing about God telling us different things, is there might be different uses behind what He would have us do.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder is it not? In which case I don't think it makes a difference either way what you say. People are still going to take it the wrong the way.

There's no need to be blatantly rude as far as I'm concerned. For all that does is prove you're blatantly rude. However, that does not mean you can't be perfectly blunt and let someone know where they get off. Either that, or let them continue to twist your words around.

Of course you yourself admit that there are no set standards and, if I'm not mistaken, no standards at all (as you seem to suggest below), so what's the point? You want me to be more clear with respect to what? ... That which is more intelligible, suggesting that standards do exist? Or, that which is less intelligible, suggesting that anything goes? which, in effect amounts to nothing. You can't have it both ways you know.

Because maybe I actually have something to say, and this makes a good backdrop for perfecting my approach?

However, I could just as easily imagine a bigot saying the same thing.

Am not completely familiar with the controversy here?

Yes, but how can you just as easily dismiss something because I don't have the type of evidence I can share with you, other than relating an alleged experience I had?

I'm saying that if we try to dismiss God, when in fact He really does exist, that we do this merely for political purposes.

So why would you have me make myself more clear -- clear compared to what, that which is even less clear? -- and not be rude to you if you didn't believe there was some sort of standard by which things are based?

It's all about feeding one's hunger, rightful (hmm ... there's that word again ) or otherwise. I mean we all have to eat don't we?

Of course who's to say that one or two folks, typically what we might call a shaman priest, which is/was pretty prevalent throughout most cultures in the world, might not have had one or two mystical experiences along the way.

Yes, just like a tree goes through various stages of growth which, for the most part are recognizable.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. It seems completely unrelated to the question of whether or not a given definition of God is meaningful.

Yes, life could exist without diversity. In fact it does in some places on earth.

If all the diverse descriptions of God are equally valid, then my description of God is equally valid, right? Well my description of God is "nonexistant". Or is that one description that you won't accept as valid?
You assume it was "given". I dispute that assumption. I believe that it just happened, not by any cosmic plan. Do you find such a concept unfathomable?
That is, quite simply, howlingly incorrect. There is much about life which does not oscillate between various extremes. Thus, your metaphor is flawed.
Similar, but not identical to my feelings. I think he is saying you must also not try to evaluate whether or not they are right in what they do or believe. It sounds very noble, but in practice, it is ridiculous. I would evaluate a mass murderer as wrong in what he does, based on my value system. But I agree that there are many times when it is best to keep your opinions to yourself.
As you may be aware, the Bible was written many years after Jesus' death, and probably after the deaths of most of the apostles. It was not written by eye witnesses. In fact, it strongly bears the mark of a legend that was repeated but different tellers focus on different details. However, I suggest we take discussions of the Bible to a different place. I don't want to get off track here.
But if different mouthpeices are giving contrary instructions, then it sounds as if some are not getting God's message right. Or perhaps all of them. How do you decide which "men of God" to believe? Is it the ones whose ideas closely parallel yours?
I am not being impudent. I would absolutely LOVE to hear from God. Who wouldn't? And if He really cared whether or not I believed in Him, then that would be the obvious way to convince me.
We are both environmentalists. Great! Look, we have something in common! Good for you. I highly approve of people making their own decisions. I'm liking you better and better. This is very much what most of the atheists do, at least the ones I am aware of. Heck, there isn't even an "Atheist Church".
If that is the case, then He is a sneaky, two-faced bastige. If you knew someone who told one story to you, but a contradictory story to your friends, wouldn't you distrust that person to ever tell the truth? Why do you let God get away with it?
I strongly disagree with this. I once was more of a fire-breathing, no-holds-barred, in-your-face kind of person. I found it actually harmed the case I was trying to make. There are good ways of saying things, and bad ways. The good ways are the ones that make people want to believe you. The bad ways are the ones that make people avoid you.
I think there are ways of letting a person know that you disapprove of what they are doing without telling them "where they get off." It is a subtle and tricky art called diplomacy.
Standards do exist (though not "absolute" standards ). However, my comments to you were in an effort to help you communicate better. How can you get your message across if nobody understands what it is you are trying to say? And I must admit that I often don't know what it is you are trying to say. If you feel like you must communicate in your poetic, abstruse way, then you must do as your conscience dictates. Be prepared to be misunderstood.
Ah, so you use them as practice grounds. Well, I can certainly understand that. But, if I may advise you, don't let their reactions bother you. You aren't really talking to them anyway, but just trying out your speeches. Unless, of course, you really care what they think about your ideas. Do you?
Yes, they might talk the talk, but they never walk the walk.

But that is an oversimplification. I have a great deal of experience with bigots. Many of them are people I love. What I discover is that everyone is bigoted about some things and not about others. I don't believe there is any such thing as an "absolute" bigot. In fact, I try to avoid the word because it is so polarizing. Again, this is a topic for another place.
In a nutshell, stem cell research uses developmental cells, often found in fetuses and umbilical cords. It has great potential for treating many horrible diseases, including cancer and Alzheimers. But some people object to using stem cells because they may come from aborted fetuses, and they believe, based on their religion, that using them, even to save lives, is wrong.
I am not dismissing it out of hand. I am evaluating it. And in my evaluation, it is unsupported by evidence. Bring me evidence that can be corroborated, and I will reopen your case.You could just as easily say that if we accept God, when in fact He really doesn't exist, we do so for political purposes. So the crux of the matter returns to whether or not God exists. I say, make that evaluation based on evidence.
{trimmed because of post-size limit}

{continued from previous post}

As I have said, I believe in standards, just not absolute standards. We choose our set of standards by what we wish to achieve. The politeness you exhibit in a forum such as this one would probably be a slightly lower standard than the politeness you would show to a judge who was deciding whether or not to throw you in jail.

My point is that if you wish to engage in constructive discussion, your standards should include clarity and respect. If your wish is to hone your skills at writing poetry, as you suggest you do in that other forum, then it is acceptible to use different standards. If your wish is just to be noticed, then rudeness should be your standard. That almost always gets attention, although not necessarily positive attention.Yes, we do. My own feeling is that those who argue for animal rights are totally insensitive to the rights of vegetables.

That's why I anchor my morality on what is good for humans. I simply cannot protect every living thing at my own species' expense. If I felt this way and took the feeling to extremes, I could never kill anything, not even a disease-causing bacterium. However, I believe that preserving the only planet we are certain can support human life is good for humans, and if that means preserving the ecosystem, then I say we try to do it. Oops. Another thread topic.
Oh, I'm quite sure that people have had mystical experiences as long as there have been people. What I'm not sure about is whether or not these experiences were based on anything real, or just their imagination. Or drugs.
Well, I must be getting better at this, because I sort of think I know what you are trying to say with this metaphor, even if it is way off topic. But I'll try to continue using your metaphor:

Yes, a tree needs certain things as a seed, different things as a sapling, and still other things as a mighty timber. It is a mistake to try to fix it to any absolute set of "values".

(No, that metaphor simply doesn't work. )

And yet how do we characterize that which is non-absolute, except by a lack of predictability? How so? Because it's based upon nothing. So what thing is there to predict? And yet even if there was nothing, that would be an absolute. Hmm ... Does that mean reality itself (by contrast) is absolute?

Sorry, I don't have time to get into the rest of this at the moment.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Well, if perspective defines context, then maybe we're approaching the notion of God from the wrong perspective?

Only in isolated instances, and that which no doubt evolved from the diveristy of life which existed elsewhere.

No less valid than I would accept the space which exists between form. How else would you recognize it without the absence thereof? While it's for the same reason that evil exists by the way, to set it in contrast with the good.

At the very least we are the beneficiaries of that which our parents gave to us.

And yet it's not incorrect to say that life exists in the medium that we call the temporate zone.

Or, perhaps maybe it's more appropriate to be compassionate? For example, if you understood that most people who are in prison were once abused as children, maybe we wouldn't be so harsh in judging them? For by doing so, we perpetuate the same unreasonableness unto others which, ultimately finds a way of getting back to us. So by not judging others we do not bring judgment upon ourselves. Which, is Karma in other words.

I don't judge the Bible so much by its authenticity in this regard. I judge it more from the standpoint of its reliability, as a roadmap, to get to a specific destination. Why? Because this is how it was presented to me. Neither have I had the time (nor inclination really) to study it in this other manner. It hasn't been necessary. Frankly, I would say it's been a road I've been on numerous times.

If God is in and of all things, then He can manifest Himself in whatever form He chooses. Are you at all familiar with Joseph Campbell's, The Masks of God?

Who knows? There are just as many ways to be convinced that God exists as there are people on this planet.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Wait a minute? What is this "wrong perspective" business? Weren't you arguing earlier that various perspectives could be right?
No, that is incorrect. Anyone who studies biology will find that life evolved from a single (or at least very few) lines. There was virtually no diversity. However, because of the wide variety of niches on the earth, things evolve (diversify) to fill those niches. But the key here is the severity of the environment. In very rough environments, diversity is low, because there are fewer niches.

I don't want to get off on an ecology lesson here, because all I want to point out is that diversity is one way life can exist. It is not the only way.
You are losing me again. I'm not talking about places where God is active versus places where He is inactive. I'm talking about the view of God that He doesn't exist anywhere. If you feel that multilple ways of viewing God can all be true, then a view of "no God anywhere" is also true.

The point here is to show you that multiple views of God involve obvious unresolvable contradictions.
Again, I disagree. Our parents don't have to "give" us anything. We may inherit their genes, but that is not because they made a conscious decision to "give" them to us. This may surprise you, but some people have children without intending to do so. Your genetic makeup is simply the statistical interaction between the genes available in the gene pool, the dynamics of mate selection, and the randomness of sperm and ova coupling, plus many other factors which are extremely unpredictable.

Also, not everything you receive from your parents is beneficial.It can be quite incorrect. Life exists in some pretty intemporate places. Here's a good generalization for you: Generalizations are usually wrong.
That's a good idea about being compassionate. It fits in very strongly with my idea of doing what is "good for humanity". However, it is not Karma. Karma invokes a supernatural power that keeps a tally sheet of positives and negatives.

In reality, bad things often happen to good people. Statistically it is better to be a good person, but it is no guarantee that you will be rewarded for it. In fact, being an evil, selfish person has a fairly attractive short-term rate of return, which explains why crime is so prevalent in our society. I believe that in the long term, it is detrimental to the group as a whole, but knocking off a bank can sure solve the short-term financial problems of the individual.
You have revealed a very important truth about religion. People tend to subscribe to the beliefs they were taught. You feel this way about the bible because that is the way it was presented to you. If religion had any basis in truth, then children would routinely be members of religions vastly different from those practiced by their parents. We know that this happens only rarely. (and usually in rebellion. )
I am familiar with it, though I have not read it. It appears to be a good study of how people arrive at their mythology, often due to the evolutionary process.

But I'm glad you're reading books that examine religion for what it is. Mythology.A mighty big "If". If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its butt.
Boy, you got that right. Some people can look at a flower and say, "Look! There's proof of God!" I don't regard these kinds of people as particularly deep. Oddly, they don't look at a bloated, putrid roadkill dog and say, "Look! Proof of God!", yet their "proof" is exactly the same.

Perhaps Monty Python said it best:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/python.htm

All perspectives are relative. But relative to what? ... How about holism? Which is to say, all the relative perspectives come together to define the perspective of the whole which, is what defines purpose. For example, what purpose does a severed arm serve -- with, its own unique perspective by the way -- when unattached to the body as a whole?

No diversity of life, but a diversity of effects (forces) provided by a suitable environment, by which life is established.

And yet how do you classify a lifeform, without a divergence of things of which it's comprised? Look at a single strand of DNA. Does that suggest something more complex or, less complex? Diversity has to be there, in order for life to exist.

And yet how do we know anything without the ability to differentiate? Don't you think that would have to be provisional, whether God exists or not? So why can't everything be reflective of God's diversity then? For without diversity, there's nothing to recognize, not even God.

It does demonstrate that there's a lineage though and, that things don't just happen arbitrarily.

It's still usually defined by a range by that which is habitable.

If, in fact the supernatural does exist, then one must be dervied from the other. Karma is just the supernatural explanation for it in other words.

It's the notion of returning evil for evil here I believe, otherwise it becomes a never-ending cycle of revenge.

I was not indoctrinated into religion by the way, not as a youth anyway.

Well guess what, even if the supernatural does exist, it's still best expressed through myth. Why? Because it speaks of a different dimension or, realm.

Not necessarily. It probably still would, albeit ever so slightly.

If God is to be found in all things, then the evidence of God is everywhere. In which case we're very unlikely to find Him, unless we adopt a change in perspective that is. (See above about holism.)

How does one establish what is reverent, without setting it in contrast to what is irreverent?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?