I open a continuation of the thread 20 Arguments for the Existence of God. It was getting a tad unwieldy.

Here are the last 5 posts from that thread. Interesting stats Bemused. Who is the unnamed person in 2nd place?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LBO Grise,

>Wrong on two counts. By your logic, it is equally valid for me to assert that God created us; if He hadn't, we wouldn't be here.

Nope, not equal. We can reproduceably and publicly demonstrate the formation of DNA from lesser units in a laboratory. You cannot do so for your theory with God. My theory can be proven; yours cannot. They are not equal, and mine has more evidence supporting it than yours does.

>Secondly, the probability of "heads" when flipping a coin is 1 in 2 regardless of the actual outcome.

More precisely, _before_ one flips a coin, the probability of heads is 1 in 2.

_After_ the coin flip, the probability of whichever side landed up is 100%, and the probability of whichever side landed down is 0%.

>The probability of the spontaneous formation of a DNA molecule

is 100% because it already happened.

But let's continue with the understanding that we are discussing our ideas of what the probabilities were _before the formation of any DNA molecule_, if that's what you mean.

>is the product of probabilities for each of the material components and the probabilities for factors such as environment and energy. That probability is vanishingly small.

The probabilities may have been thought to be vanishingly small at one time.

But during the last half of the 20th century, it has been found that those probabilities were much higher than formerly thought, so much higher as to almost reach inevitability on early Earth.

>There may be *indications* or *evidence* of organic molecules in "our galaxy and others" but you'd be hard- pressed to obtain the molecules themselves.

You don't trust science much, do you?

The spectral signatures of organic molecules are quite distinct and can be precisely measured in laboratories then compared to the spectra of light from extraterrestrial sources, using various instruments. There have been thousands of exact matches, and there is no known explanation other than that the observed spectra came from light emitted or absorbed by the identified organic molecules.

Can _you_ provide an alterative explanation (that the organic molecules are _not_ out there) that is consistent with the known facts?

>It's a huge leap of complexity from amino acids arriving via meteorites to DNA.

Laboratories are currently constructing DNA from amino acids. The physical conditions required are well within the conditions that existed on early Earth, according to current knowledge.

>But if amino acids, why not DNA via meteorite?

Maybe someday we'll find some. It's not impossible.

>If it hadn't happened that way, we wouldn't be here, right?

Wrong. As I've pointed out previously, DNA could have formed in the conditions thought to have been present on Earth four+ billion years ago, without the intervention of meteorites.

I cited the meteorite findings to show that there is direct evidence for existence of extraterrestrial organic molecules.

>That one word "percolate" hides a tremendous quantity of unknowns as well.

Of course. So do did the blank spots on maps of Antarctica, before satellite mapping, that is.

>Surely you have evidence that there were millions of years of the proper stable environment and the correct amounts of energy and elements conducive of the formation of DNA?

Since you are rightly skeptical of taking my word for it, I'll refer you to sources you can investigate for yourself -- check the back issues of Science, Nature, and similar scientific publications in your public or university libraries. (I'll throw in a plug for a recent book: Read "Rare Earth" for an overview.)

>What exactly are the conditions required anyway?

See the publications to which I referred you above, or look for answers on the Web. If you refuse to do so, you are willfully hiding from the answers to your questions.

> Do you have the recipe?

For more detail than I've already given, I'd have to refer to a large number of books and other sources I've read during my adult life.

If you are sincere in wanting the recipe, you can find it in scientific publications.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 19, 2001.

Maria,

I had a look at http://www.origins.org/truth/1truth12.html

I noticed that much of its arguments fit in my category D) "God is an upward extension of the parent-child relationship." Is that part of your view, too?

>It states that the reason atheists don't believe in God is because they desire personal satisfaction with no guilt.

... and the obvious comeback is that the reason theists do believe in God is that they desire personal satisfaction with no responsibility.

Come on -- let's have some deeper thinking here.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 19, 2001.

Ah caint get no satisfackshun.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), March 19, 2001.

Interesting thread, but it takes about 10 refreshes for me to get it to load anymore, and maybe 15-20 minutes of trying. Not worth the effort. Can we start a new one?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 19, 2001.

I second that.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001.

Stats on this thread:

As of Tue Mar 20 09:10:02 CST 2001 :

# Lines: # Posts: Name: ---------------- ------------ ------------------------ 864 (23.7%) 20 (14.4%) no spam please 662 (18.2%) 21 (15.1%) 478 (13.1%) 9 ( 6.5%) you're not getting my wallet 420 (11.5%) 15 (10.8%) maria 375 (10.3%) 13 ( 9.4%) flint 213 ( 5.9%) 8 ( 5.8%) eve 152 ( 4.2%) 10 ( 7.2%) lbo grise 130 ( 3.6%) 11 ( 7.9%) tarzan the ape man 114 ( 3.1%) 7 ( 5.0%) bemused 92 ( 2.5%) 7 ( 5.0%) lars 41 ( 1.1%) 4 ( 2.9%) rich 12 ( 0.3%) 1 ( 0.7%) open your eyes 10 ( 0.3%) 1 ( 0.7%) david deutch 7 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) tommy deatta 7 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) sumer 7 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) proof of god 7 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) dr. pibb 7 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) bubba 6 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) romo 6 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) out 6 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) just wondering 6 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) guess who 6 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) futureshock 6 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) flora 6 ( 0.2%) 1 ( 0.7%) alfie

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 20, 2001.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001

Answers

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001.

Sorry for the mess.

-- Lars (Larsguy@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001.

That program only counts the name in front of the email address. The unnamed person looks like nemesis, who provides an email address but no name when he/she posts, but it's actually a count of anyone who does that.

I should change it to count name and address as one item.

It also shows people who only posted one line as six lines, and that's because there are six lines including whitespace in those posts. So there's a 5 line pad on each line count.

I wrote it to keep stats on another thread last year where religion was being discussed - interestingly, those always seem to be the longest threads.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 20, 2001.

Bemused, this is the first time I've ever responded on a "religious" thread.

NSP wrote:

"Okay. Let's say "valuable" is a synonym for "precious". I believe life is valuable because I am living and because I depend on other living things for my sustenance. I believe life is valuable from an academic perspective because it has been found that there are so many wonderful aspects of life that were not known as recently as a few hundred years ago. I believe life is valuable for other reasons I am not going to take the time to detail now.

"God" is one of the ideas that exist in human minds. "God" does not exist outside of minds. "

[My comment, from the mathematician's stand point: A theorem in math has been proven, by definition. A postulate has not been proven but may be accepted by the scientists as fact until it can be disproved. ]

My supposition on the atheist view point is only me trying to understand their (your) standpoint. Don't take it personally. Please help me understand why you believe (I guess don't believe).

I began my question with a statement that I didn't want to discuss organized religion, but merely the existence of God. So, the question asked for the atheist to say why they value life. So far, Flint, you and Eve (who doesn't consider herself atheist) replied.

My words on randomness, fluke, chaos come from the other posts that it all just happened. No reason for it happening the way it did, just that it. Do I have that part right? It (the here and now) could have happened any number of ways, no reason for it.

Side comment: Big Bang is being disputed by Steven Hawking who first postulated the big bang.

But my question is not about the mechanics. We understand the mechanics.

"The "instinct" is simply a reference to the collective properties of organisms that cause them to "live". . ." You give the clinical explanation. So am I correct in assuming you don't believe in any other explanation beyond this. This is the same process that every animal and plant goes through. Yet we're different than any other living organism on this planet; we have a rationalizing mind. So what explains our instinct as different from the others? I propose that since we have something above all other living organisms so we must have more than just this survival instinct.

"What sorts of purposes will you allow as answers to your questions, and what sorts will you disallow?" Excellent question. I want something more than the lame comments I've seen so far. We like it. We enjoy life. We have goals. We've learned so much. For, we are mortal with rationalizing minds. We know based on scientific evidence, that we will die. Why is our will to live so strong?

"Study modern biology, and find out." I understand the clinical answers but I'm asking you for something more than the study of life. When we know rationally that what we do doesn't matter a lick. For we and every other living organism (including the planet) will die, why do we value life? When the end of our life comes, we turn to dust. Who would give a shit in a hundred years what your personal goals were? Why do we care about the future of humanity, when the ultimate future is death for all? Do you think a dog contemplates such goals? I'm just looking for the atheist point of view. You tell me.

You keep saying I am promoting some propaganda. I'm not. I would like you (or any other atheist) to explain their standpoint, nothing more. If you don't want to help me understand then disengage.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 20, 2001.

Bemused, this is the first time I've ever responded on a "religious" thread.

You're kidding right?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 20, 2001.

I'll take a stab at communicating what I experience as God.

For those of you who know what life-force energy is (also called chi or prana) – and one cannot know unless it is experienced – that is God to me.

An analogy is that of a radio wave. I am not an amateur radio enthusiast, so please correct me if I am wrong about the makeup of a radio wave. That said, the radio wave is comprised of a carrier wave and two sidebands. The sidebands contain the actual radio signals – the information, if you will.

I experience life-force energy as comprised of unconditional love coming in on one 'sideband'; knowledge & intuition flowing in on another 'sideband'. All of it I consider to be godstuff – food off which my being thrives body, mind & soul. It is divine nectar. It fills me. Makes me feel whole, complete, alive. It expands my consciousness as far as it will stretch. As my receptivity heightens, I experience more and more of what I label God.

When consciously connected to this Source of life-force energy, I find that I operate as a transceiver. The life-force energy flows into me, feeds me, and flows through me. My abilities as a transceiver are crude and require much refining. But even so, there are times when I can connect with others via this wave of lifeforce energy. Or rather, I sometimes perceive this 'always on' connection with others. It is bliss! It is shared consciousness and love. It is a glimpse of our species capabilities. It is a peek at what we can achieve in the way of communications within our own species, with other species & perhaps (I speculate) with all that exists. For all is composed of this godstuff. All is one and can be experienced as such. So I posit.

For those of you who read this and think, "What a bunch of New Age crap!", please realize the concept of life-force energy and yoga philosophy (to which I am partial) is much, much older than Islam & Christianity; was experienced and passed down orally for many thousands of years, finally recorded by sages of India and compiled as the Vedas. The only thing 'New' about it is the individual's personal experiences.

I am not learned in physics, psychology, comparative religion, mathematics. I am not learned period. I won't pretend to have answers for anyone. I can attempt to clarify comments in this post if asked to do so.

I'm not a joiner of organized religion. I do not have a vested interest in selling my brand of God. Skepticism is a well-worn tool, one which I find invaluable, one which I keep close at hand. The same for introspection.

I ask for no proofs from anyone, for how can one furnish proof or disproof of God through language? Nonetheless, debate can be fun, provide exercise for our minds, and perhaps we may learn a thing or two in the process.

I wish each of you well on your life's journey. Godspeed, if you will. ;)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 20, 2001.

Rich, I knew you felt that way and I couldn't agree more. This is what I wrote on the other thread:

God is interwoven into the fabric of life. We value life because it is the life force, not a part of our four dimensional world but into our very being, beyond our consciousness, beyond our five senses. It (not he, God has no gender) is the total conscience of the universe in every aspect of being. We're all a part of it; not just I but the universal. It drives us to have morals based on a rational system. It is the little voice in us, telling us right from wrong, providing us the values for our choices. It doesn't care what we choose. It is the justice system for interpersonal relationships. Karma keeps track of the rights and wrongs. My God doesn't damn you to eternal hell if you make the wrong choices but that justice (or Karma) will balance your wrongdoing. We rationalize based on this "objective reality" or objectivism because we sub- consciously know of this underlying fabric which I call God. If we do something selfishly we may have a temporary satisfaction from it. But if it doesn't promote the good of nature, then we don't continue.

Flint wrote after bashing me for writing such a stupid paragraph, "We have order because we like it. Because it makes life comfortable. Because it provides a structure within which we can better achieve our various goals, whatever they might be. Because events are not random, we can control many of them to our own advantage. We don't NEED to dream up some imaginary being who then turns around and tells us what we invented him to tell us. We already KNEW that in the first place."

Wow, how profound! Obviously this doesn't tell me why we are here. It tells me that we're here because we have goals and can act to reach them. It reminds me of Dick Clark's American Bandstand, "I give it an 85 because I can dance to the beat." Pretty lame.

So we, as an intelligent life form, are here for no other purpose than to "make the best of it", to enjoy for however short it is. I find that cruel and unusual punishment. I find that to be a bad joke.

I understand that we must satisfy our physical needs to survive. We need to eat, breath, and others. We have other needs as well. We have needs for relationships. We have needs to further our knowledge; our curiosity moves us to study scientific, humanities, sociology and other areas. No other living organism has these emotional needs, except for my dog who studies Shakespeare :-)

The basis for these needs can not be as easily explained as the clinical explanation Flint and NSP have given for the origins of the universe and biology. Psychology attempts to describe these needs through an ego, through a conscience and sub-conscience. But this scientific area is less concrete than astrophysics and biology, yet accepted by the community for the most part. And according to NSP category C, psychology must also be the study of God.

So why do we value life? Because we are all connected. That interconnectedness is God.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 20, 2001.

"God is dead." - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead." - God

-- (@ .), March 20, 2001.

Oops sorry, Flint didn't comment on that paragraph but another.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 20, 2001.

Maria, I read that fine post of yours and perhaps it spurred me to share my thoughts and experiences. BTW, I find the theory of karma as natural law superb. It answers so many of my questions, forces me to assume responsibility for my thoughts and actions, and most importantly provides a structure to my life and a reason to put forth effort, as opposed to merely skating through life half asleep.

Side Note: Flint's writing lately has been incredibly clear and skillful, IMO. Or perhaps I'm merely enjoying a spike in reading comprehension. I appreciate it when he takes the time to craft posts. Often times the ideas communicated in his pieces fly over my head, leave me speechless and feeling quite uneducated. Yet I so enjoy his marvelous writing. Makes tolerating the knuckleheads just a little bit easier.

I meant to drop you an email to this effect, Flint, but I think you deserve to receive props publicly. Thank you.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 20, 2001.

Rich:

Thank you, that's most considerate. I do try to put some thought into most of my posts, at the very least to avoid the normal practice around here of just throwing slogan grenades at one another. And often enough, someone actually thinks right back, to the benefit of all of us.

Developming informed opinions is like learning any other difficult skill in that it takes time and effort. It's more difficult than many because it requires that you be able to adopt different viewpoints, and sometimes change your mind. Too often here and everywhere, we see ossified opinions defended by belligerant ignorance, by people who are not honest with themselves (and don't admit this to themselves as a consequence). It's wonderful whenever one of these logjams breaks, and remarkable even when one is recognized to exist at all.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 20, 2001.

JESUS made a powerful=CLAIM. HE said you want too see=GOD LOOK UNTO ME!!

NOT TALKING CHURCHIANITY HERE.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 20, 2001.

I always read with interest these posts on religion, because its one of the topics that never seem to have a right or wrong answer - just opinions. It is how well that opinion is articulated that lends credibility. I often sit and marvel at how well many of you take the time to research your answers, often providing proper "cites" when needed.

Personally, I sit on the fence. I attended Catholic school all the way thru high school in New York. Not because of religion, but the Regents program where you needed a 75 to "pass" vs. a "65" in public school. The quality of education was better then as well (this was the mid-to-late 70's mind you). But am I "religious"? No. I do not believe in a particular "God", however I do have "faith" that mankind will eventually do the right thing from day to day. I feel organised religion is great for folks that are lost in life and need some stability to improve their outlook. Having the various rituals and church gatherings are what made people come together and made the "small town" image work so well. (And because thats NOT the way it is now, IMO contributes to the decline in morals/values we see today).

OTOH, "freedom of religion" does not give anyone the right to stuff THEIR views down MY throat. Hell yes...put religion back in schools. Give the kids a firm moral base to work from. When they get older, THEN they can decide if God fits into their world. If so, fine. If not, fine again. At least they won't turn into these immoral, clueless thugs that you see on TV every night. Just my .02 [grin]

-- JCL Jockey (WeThrive@nStress.com), March 21, 2001.

Maria,

>My supposition on the atheist view point is only me trying to understand their (your) standpoint.

Definitions (paraphrased from Webster's Third New International Dictionary):

theist - person who believes in a god or gods

atheist - person who does not believe in a god or gods

That's the distinction -- whether or not there is belief in one or more gods.

>Don't take it personally.

Stuff like "the atheists would steal whatever they want, rape whomever they choose, murder whoever gets in their way with no regard for life and no values whatsoever" is anti-atheist slander, insofar as there is no mention of theists doing the same things, which gives the impression that _only_ (and all) atheists would do such things.

Surely you know that there are theists who steal whatever they want, rape whomever they choose, or murder whoever gets in their way, and that there are atheists who never would steal, rape, or murder.

Since I've written that I am in the atheist category, slander about atheists rubs me the wrong way. If you don't want me to take it personally, don't slander my category.

I don't recall having seen you characterize your beliefs as being of a certain religion (maybe you have, but I missed that). _Suppose_, for the sake of discussion, that you were Christian/Protestant/Seventh-Day Adventist. Wouldn't you be at least slightly offended if someone else wrote that "the Seventh-Day Adventists would steal whatever they want, rape whomever they choose, murder whoever gets in their way with no regard for life and no values whatsoever"?

>I began my question with a statement that I didn't want to discuss organized religion, but merely the existence of God.

But you throw in all sorts of statements and questions that are not about the existence of God! :-)

For example, your next sentence:

>So, the question asked for the atheist to say why they value life.

Are you implying that the only reason theists (including yourself) have for valuing life is their belief in a god or gods, and that without it (i.e., if they were atheists), they would not have reason to value life?

Theists' only reason for valuing life is their belief in the existence of a god ir gods?

If not (i.e., if theists have more reason than that to value life), then will you not grant atheists the same other-than-because-of-belief-in-god reasons?

>My words on randomness, fluke, chaos come from the other posts that it all just happened. No reason for it happening the way it did, just that it. Do I have that part right?

_Which_ part right?

a) That you got your words from other posts? -- Apparently so.

b) That other posts said it all just happened, no reason for it happening the way it did? -- Well, if that is intended to be a paraphrase of _my_ posts, it's inaccurate. But if it is a paraphase of other posts you've seen, I can't say unless you tell me to which posts you are referring.

>"The "instinct" is simply a reference to the collective properties of organisms that cause them to "live". . ." You give the clinical explanation. So am I correct in assuming you don't believe in any other explanation beyond this.

That assumption is not necessarily correct.

We seem to have significant differences in our viewpoints and assumptions. As long as that is so, I may need to extend or revise what I write about my beliefs in order to respond to questions or apparent misunderstandings, and that may involve revealing what you may regard as another explanation.

>This is the same process that every animal and plant goes through. Yet we're different than any other living organism on this planet; we have a rationalizing mind.

Perhaps you have not yet read about findings during the last few decades that some other species (e.g., chimpanzees and African Gray parrots) also can demostrate rational thought.

>So what explains our instinct as different from the others?

Well, it's not all that different. We lead more complicated lives than any other species, perhaps, but our instincts for living are basically the same.

>I propose that since we have something above all other living organisms so we must have more than just this survival instinct.

Well, of course we have more than just a survival instinct.

But so do chimps and parrots. They both do things that are not only survival-oriented. Gorillas can fingerpaint, given the materials and brief instruction.

- - -

I wrote: "Life is what reproduces itself. Nonlife is what doesn't."

You replied, "Yes, and how did we happen into the reproductive column?"

I responded, "Study modern biology, and find out", which was a bit flippant, but added, "I wrote a brief summary above, but have to refer you to the modern writings of other scientists for the details. Browse back issues of Scientific American or other leading science publications for more detailed outlines."

You followed with, "I understand the clinical answers but I'm asking you for something more than the study of life."

But your question ("how did we happen into the reproductive column?") _was_ about the study of life!

- - -

>When we know rationally that what we do doesn't matter a lick.

Sounds like clinical depression.

>For we and every other living organism (including the planet) will die, why do we value life?

Are you saying that your reasons for valuing life depend upon the absence of death?

Do you think the reality of death makes life valueless?

>Who would give a shit in a hundred years what your personal goals were?

(Gee. Again sounds like clinical depression.)

Well, I, and the people with whom I interact, care. Also, people use the personal goals of famous people of history, insofar as they are known, as examples for inspiration or avoidance.

>Why do we care about the future of humanity, when the ultimate future is death for all?

Well, many people don't care much about humanity's future beyond their own lifetimes, but that's not because they're contemplating an ultimate future of death for all.

BTW, some folks (including me) think it's possible for humanity to survive indefinitely.

>You keep saying I am promoting some propaganda.

No. I said that some of the words in your postings were, or sounded like, propaganda. That doesn't mean you are promoting propaganda -- you might be repeating it unknowingly; I consider the possibilities of ignorance or carelessness more likely than the possibility of malice.

- - -

From your posting addressed to Rich:

>And according to NSP category C, psychology must also be the study of God.

No, the latter cannot be validly concluded from "C) God is what I call anything I can't explain otherwise".

Psychology studies certain aspects of human thinking; it is not a catch-all study of anything that can't be otherwise explained.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

JCL Jockey,

>Hell yes...put religion back in schools.

Gee, did you buy into the myth that religion has been banned from schools? It hasn't.

All that's been banned from (public) schools is the governmental (e.g., board of education or school administration) prescription of religious practice or the unconstitutional favoring of one or some religions over others. Any student who wants to pray, for instance, has always been, and still is, legally free to do so.

But this situation has been distorted, mostly by those who wish to make authoritarian prescriptions of religion practice in public schools, into the myth that religion has been banned or taken out of schools.

>OTOH, "freedom of religion" does not give anyone the right to stuff THEIR views down MY throat.

Then you'll be pleased to be informed that _that_ ("the right to stuff ...") is precisely what _has_ been banned from public schools by the courts.

Opponents of such court rulings have twisted this.

When the court banned the practice of having a prayer spoken over the loudspeakers before each high school athletic event, it wasn't banning prayer. Whoever wanted to pray could still do so. What the court banned was the practice of officially (by school officials) mandating that there be a time prescribed for the purpose of prayer before each event, and the practice of granting access to the public address system for broadcasting spoken prayer. If any person or group of people want to pray for a minute before the event, no one's stopping them from doing so -- they just can't impose their religious practice on others with the collaboration of school officials.

But some people _do_ want to impose their religious practices on students with the collaboration of school officials, and deceptively characterize this as "putting religion back into schools".

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

NSP, thanks for responding to my questions.

>When we know rationally that what we do doesn't matter a lick.

>>Sounds like clinical depression.

>>Do you think the reality of death makes life valueless?

I knew that was going to be taken that way. In a word yes. I'm not clinically depressed. (You've just psycho analyzed me without evening looking into my eyes.) Isn't it a fact that we (every living organism) are mortal? Then truly what does it matter how you live your life? And to whom does it matter, in the end, in the final day when there's nothing left? That's the basis of my question.

"the atheists would steal whatever they want, rape whomever they choose, murder whoever gets in their way with no regard for life and no values whatsoever"

You're absolutely right; I apologize for attacking atheist but I didn't imply that they are the ONLY ones who would do this. I wanted to make the point that atheists shouldn't logically value life. (Guess I missed, sorry, yet you are the only atheist attempting to explain why you value life. I find it interesting that YNGMW and Tar have not joined in.) Again, in the end there's nothing but a burnt up earth, no living organism. Even if you extend that other worlds exist with other living species, those too will end. Scientists have shown how a star is born (not the Barbra type) and how a star dies. We know these facts. If your only reason for living is to make the best of it, promote a future (a future that's all too short in and of itself), protect the environment, then I'm having a tough time understanding that leap to that as the meaning of life. That's all there is folks? There must be something more than "let's make the best of it". Do you understand my question? (Words get in the way all the time!) What is that extra something that prevents the atheist from living life to his own cause? What makes you stop yourself from doing wrong? You have values. Why do you have values? Because you know the cause and effect relationship of survival of our society and individual deeds. (Do I have this right so far?)

Hope you can see how I'm trying to connect this. Again, the atheist believes no God exists. The atheist also believes that life is mortal, ends, finito. Nothing lives on, we get buried and that's it, no more. Well with such finality for not only the individual but also for the entire universe (entropy), why do we value life? Logically it will be over; it won't matter how you live your little life. OK so if everyone went on a murder spree, there would be nothing left. Well, that looks very much like what will happen anyway, maybe just a little sooner than predictions. Can you see that I'm looking for something more than just because? If there's nothing beyond our little world, and our little world ends, why do we care how it ends?

"BTW, some folks (including me) think it's possible for humanity to survive indefinitely." How can that be? There's no scientific proof or postulate that supports this thinking. (Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that atheists in general also believe this?) Atheist (you more directly) believe that God doesn't exist because there's no scientific proof, yet you are willing to believe in something without scientific proof. So there must be another reason you believe that God doesn't exist. Right?

"Psychology studies certain aspects of human thinking; it is not a catch-all study of anything that can't be otherwise explained." Just trying to understand here. Psychology is a "soft science", no hard facts, no proof, no true validation. We accept that study, even though it's attempting to explain the stuff that . . . "I call anything I can't explain otherwise". See the similarity. True, psychology is examining a certain aspect of our lives, that is our behavior, but the methodology it uses to explain our behavior is similar to the theologians explaining the existence of God. Same technique for explaining the unexplainable.

"Are you implying that the only reason theists (including yourself) have for valuing life is their belief in a god or gods, and that without it (i.e., if they were atheists), they would not have reason to value life?" Yes. But I'd like you to explain why you believe that God doesn't exist and yet you can support your value for life. (My definition of God is as above, not some white guy with white robes, long flowing hair and blue eyes. That's why I want to leave organized religion out of it - our discussion of God. God has no gender and no race; it is that group conscience, that connects us all, hence the reason we value life.)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 21, 2001.

Maria, you are reading my mind again. Please cut that out, there's personal stuff in there.

I too find it impossible to find any meaning in a life without a transcendent dimension. If there is no basis for life beyond what we know from our senses or from our instrumentation, then IMO it is true that "all is permissible".

Soon enough we all shall croak. If there is nothing more, then so be it. But if there is nothing more then doesn't temporal existence also mean nothing? Why should I strive to be an Albert Schweitzer when it may be more "fun" to be an Adolph Hitler? I know that many people see life as self-justifying. Mostly, I can function at that level too. But not always.

My favorite song is not Peggy Lee's Is that All There Is?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

Maria (and Lars),

I was in the middle of writing responses to many of the issues you posed, but then I thought I'd just try to focus on the essence of your concerns.

"Why be moral if it's all going to end?" I assume is the main question.

Every day you show through your actions a life-based morality, by donig and pursuing life-based "values." You do this through your eating, sleeping, caring for the ones you love, admiring a flower or a painting, etc. Are you saying that you wouldn't do any of these, and just waste away or go on joy-killing sprees, etc. if you thought that this was all there is, and/or no God? Please don't take offense at this -- I'm really trying to follow you here -- this makes absolutely no sense to me.

Please elaborate.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

Eve--

No, I am not saying that *I* would go on a joy-killing spree but I am saying that I see no reason to condemn someone else for doing that if there is nothing more than rational-ethical standards of behavior.

I totally admit that, under normal circumstances, life itself is enough reason to celebrate life. I have never heard of a new-born that is suicidal. We all enter life with a life-force that requires no justification. But adult human beings, unique to all other living creatures (as far as we know), have a consciousness that does lead us to wonder "why?". Maybe that is neurotic, but I think it is a natural consequence of verbal cognition.

"The unexamined life is not worth living"? Somtimes I think it's the other way around.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

"Are you implying that the only reason theists (including yourself) have for valuing life is their belief in a god or gods, and that without it (i.e., if they were atheists), they would not have reason to value life?" I didn't answer that question fully. It's the underlying foundation (not the only reason). I too believe that life's too short, make the best of it, do good for the sake of society, find beauty in every living thing, including, mountains, trees, and oceans. But why do I value life? The ultimate reason, the root cause for all my joys, wondrous moments and life experiences, is because of God. Something beyond our little world, something connecting all of us, something binding us together, yet expects us to act individually to pursue our own happiness, our own destiny (short-lived goals and long term evolution of our soul - the individual piece of the group conscience).

Lars,

"I know that many people see life as self-justifying. Mostly, I can function at that level too. But not always." I agree. For a short answer, "life is its own reward." But that can't be the final answer without something beyond. We need to see beyond our short-term misfortunes, to continue with life. I really liked the idea you wrote on the other thread of the finite mind. We are so trapped, jailed into this material world; we can't "see" beyond the horizon.

"My favorite song is not Peggy Lee's Is that All There Is?" Hmmm Did she sing this after sex? (Joke :) Frankly I don't remember it.

Eve, what Lars said.

"just waste away or go on joy-killing sprees, etc. if you thought that this was all there is, and/or no God?" Of course not, I believe in God, something that moves me in the right direction. What is the atheist's source to move in the right direction? I haven't seen an explanation outside of a superficial one. Let's suppose that an atheist comes to a fork in the road and experiences life's bumps and misfortunes, does he continue on the path of good? And why? It would be so much easier to just "chuck it". What motivates him to move beyond the fact that life isn't as good as he'd like? He just can't see at this point with all his misfortunes that "life is its own reward".

Mother Teresa didn't have a life (in the materialistic sense), yet her belief in God made her continue to do good for the world. When an atheist meets life's challenges (no money, food, shelter, and any other not so heartwarming stuff), where's the value in continuing on?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 21, 2001.

Maria:

"Well everything dies, baby, that's a fact / but maybe everything that dies someday comes back"

--From "Atlantic City" by Bruce Springsteen

Probably the single strongest motivation for the invention of religion was to find some way, however fanciful, to deny the reality of death. For many people, the recognition of the reality of death implies that life is futile, empty, devoid of any larger meaning. This is a common form for the fear of death to take.

And religion has several really wonderful attributes. It provides a useful absolute ("god"), however imaginary, against which life can be placed into a more comfortable context. It promises that death does not end life, which people are willing to accept despite all evidence to the contrary and absolutely none in favor. It posits that there is something ineffable about people that makes them superior to every other living thing, which obviously also dies but differently somehow. People enjoy feeling superior.

And perhaps most important, it allows the social power structure to control the entry portal to eternal life. You don't just live forever naturally, see? You have to behave yourself, do as you are told, and believe as you are instructed. If you do not, you will die permanently/ live in eternal misery/return to life as something unpleasant. But so long as you follow the rules (i.e. *our* rules), your life has real permanent meaning and death is simply a phase change to something better. Uh huh.

Now, I'll admit I'd never before heard the fantasy that if you don't believe as instructed, you will suddenly start behaving like such a complete jerk that any functioning society will have no choice but to punish you, and that you *won't be able to help yourself*! And once again, ALL available evidence being to the contrary seems irrelevant.

And of course, despite all this you still die. But maybe it doesn't bother you as much. It must not, to be worth buying into so much irrationality. Still, there are non-religious paths to the same goal. I prefer recognizing death insofar as I should provide for my heirs, and then forgetting about it as unavoidable and therefore irrelevant. I don't need anyone else to tell me what some invisible man is supposed to have required that I believe, to learn what works best and be happy with it. Meaning is something you find for yourself.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 21, 2001.

Eve,

I thought you had said that you were not atheist. You do, in fact, believe in God, yet you are arguing the atheist point of view. (Nothing wrong with that, certainly your choice.) You feel deep down in your gut (soul) that there is a God. You have the value for life beyond the mere joy (the superficial one). You wouldn't ever imagine yourself "chucking it" just because life became too difficult. You value something more than just life itself. When it comes right down to it, you can not possibly argue for the atheist point of view. Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth; I just see a contradiction there.

I'm not saying that theists don't despair, absolutely they do. For the moment when life becomes too hard, they can and indeed lose sight of God. If they don't find their way back, they could end it.

What I'm saying is that in the end atheists believe in God. That's why my beginning posts on the other thread had atheists in quotes. I don't believe that there are any atheists and I'd like an explanation from an atheist for why he values life.

Personal reason for me perpetuating this topic: my brother and SO don't believe in an "afterlife" (another term for God). I can't get them to sit down and talk to me about it. These are good people and I think that deep down they do believe in God but yet reject the "organized" storytelling religion they were brought up with.

Flint, your answer is so typical of what I've seen in past threads. You've completely ignored my words (no religion, God isn't a man). You haven't answered my question with anything more than "because I like it". I'll respond to you in more detail when I get a chance.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 21, 2001.

Lars, [No, I am not saying that *I* would go on a joy-killing spree but I am saying that I see no reason to condemn someone else for doing that...]

What about a natural feel for the preciousness, sanctity and uniqueness of life? I sense that you have a NATURAL feeling for this -- right? So do I, and so do 99.99999999% of everyone in the civilized world. Doesn't that tell you something -- something about our NATURE? And when you speak of a "life-force" we're born with, it appears you understand this.

Assuming it's natural for us to regard life as the highest value, then it follows logically for us to morally condemn anyone who consciously violates it.

Maria,

[But why do I value life? The ultimate reason, the root cause for all my joys, wondrous moments and life experiences, is because of God.]

What if there were no God -- what say you then?

["My favorite song is not Peggy Lee's Is that All There Is?" Hmmm Did she sing this after sex?]

LOL! (I'm not sure where this originated in the thread, but this was from 1969.) NOW you've done it! All I can picture now is her leaning back afterwards, having a cigarette, starting to sing this -- and probably a Woody Allen-type next to her, becoming increasingly upset...("No, no, Woody...I'm just practicing for my next gig. The lyrics? Oh, that's just a coincidence.")

[Mother Teresa didn't have a life (in the materialistic sense), yet her belief in God made her continue to do good for the world.]

What about an athiest's love of humanity leading him to do the same things? Just as valid? If not, why not?

[When an atheist meets life's challenges (no money, food, shelter, and any other not so heartwarming stuff), where's the value in continuing on?]

To live -- to appreciate life's good things, to continue to try to make life better for your self and loved ones -- through the sheer joy of it all. But you DO have a choice. If life becomes unbearable, you can choose to die. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, either. But those would be the exceptions -- certainly not the rule.

I understand the psychological need to think that someone's looking after us -- especially when life gets seemingly unbearable for us. I feel this need too. And it's very strong sometimes. But -- as hard as it is to hear (and even say) this -- that doesn't make it true. Not that it's false, mind you. It's just that I think the jury's still out on the God issue.

Oh yes...to respond to something you asked me earlier -- most athiests don't come out and say/believe that there absolutely is no God. They just have an absence of belief -- more of a passive thing -- because the God concept is not coherent to them.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

Maria,

>>>Do you think the reality of death makes life valueless?

>I knew that was going to be taken that way. In a word yes.

I'm surprised by your response. I expected ... well, never mind.

Do you _really_ think that the reality of death makes life valueless? (I ask again because I'm so surprised. Feel free to answer with more than "yes".)

But if you insist on an answer of, essentially, "yes", then:

a) Does that mean the lives of all those people who lived in the past were valueless? Do we not derive value from the achievements of those who've finished living their lives? Our civilizations were constructed by people now dead. What about the great works of art, literature, science, law, philosophy, and so on, which were created by people who no longer live? Was your school education valuable, regardless of whether many of the ideas incorporated into it originated with folks who died before you were born?

b) You wouldn't be alive to have your belief in God if it were not for your having an unbroken string of ancestors, almost all of whom are now dead. Weren't your ancestors' lives of value at least insofar as they enabled you to be arguing on this forum today?

>I'm not clinically depressed. (You've just psycho analyzed me without evening looking into my eyes.)

I have been clinically depressed; my words came from my personal experience.

>Isn't it a fact that we (every living organism) are mortal? Then truly what does it matter how you live your life?

As noted above, at least it matters insofar as the achievements and progeny you create live after you and have value. Also see my earlier comment on lessons we draw from the histories of people now dead.

>And to whom does it matter, in the end, in the final day when there's nothing left?

That's several billion years away. Are you basing your valuation of your present life on what will happen that far in the future?

>I apologize for attacking atheist but I didn't imply that they are the ONLY ones who would do this.

Well, the implication came from the absence of mention of theists doing such things.

>I wanted to make the point that atheists shouldn't logically value life.

Again I will observe that your words give the impression that you portray atheists as less than theists.

>yet you are the only atheist attempting to explain why you value life.

(Gaaackkk! The burden of representing a whole category! ;-)

You do realize, I hope, that another atheist might have different views on many of these things -- the defining characteristic of this category, as I pointed out earlier, is quite slim, leaving as much room for diversity as in your half.

>I find it interesting that YNGMW and Tar have not joined in.)

Hey, it's just one forum with a small number of readers (compared to the total for all Internet fora) and a smaller number of posters! Maybe YNGMW and Tar are busier with other matters right now because they are receiving even more no-help from a non-God than I am. :-)

>Again, in the end there's nothing but a burnt up earth, no living organism.

So, do you, like myself, support a long-term program of space exploration and colonization of other inhabitable planets, so that the human race has somewhere else to live when the Sun heats up a few billion years from now?

>Even if you extend that other worlds exist with other living species, those too will end. Scientists have shown how a star is born (not the Barbra type) and how a star dies. We know these facts. If your only reason for living is to make the best of it, promote a future (a future that's all too short in and of itself),

(You consider billions of years too short? No wonder you spend the time to contribute so much to this forum!)

>protect the environment, then I'm having a tough time understanding that leap to that as the meaning of life.

Well, that's quite a substantial load of goals already. More than enough for me, even if there weren't more, which there is.

>That's all there is folks?

No. There's quite a bit you've left out, even without invoking God.

>There must be something more than "let's make the best of it".

Yes, and I've been giving examples. Do you acknowledge my examples?

>What is that extra something that prevents the atheist from living life to his own cause?

There is no such extra something. Neither theists nor Atheists are, in general (setting aside matters such as slavery), prevented from living life to their own causes.

(Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by "living life to his own cause" ...)

Don't you live life to your "own cause", which apparently includes a belief in God and some associated religion (which you need not specify, as you noted earlier)? If so, then why shouldn't I, or anyone else, live life to my own cause (which may include a different set of beliefs)?

>What makes you stop yourself from doing wrong? You have values. Why do you have values? Because you know the cause and effect relationship of survival of our society and individual deeds. (Do I have this right so far?)

Do you have it "right"? I can't answer for you. Do you think you have it "right"?

I get the impression that you are questioning me as though I could answer from some atheistic creed, as one might answer from a religious creed. Sorry, but there is no "Atheists' Creed".

Your answer to the question of why someone has values is one expression. There could be a hundred other valid (i.e., "right") expressions of answer to that question.

>The atheist also believes that life is mortal, ends, finito.

Not necessarily. The definitions of "theist" and "atheist" have to do only with belief in a god or gods, not with belief in mortality, finality, or finiteness. The latter could be bases for separate categories, which could overlap the theist/atheist categories. An atheist could believe in immortality; a theist could believe in finality.

(Gee, Maria, if you _are_ reading from an "Atheists' Creed" (what with all your declarative statements about atheists' beliefs), will you please send me a copy so we can communicate more efficiently? :-)

>Nothing lives on, we get buried and that's it, no more.

See my earlier remarks for counterexamples.

>Well with such finality for not only the individual but also for the entire universe (entropy), why do we value life?

Do you seriously think that a significant fraction of people take universal entropy into account when valuing life? I don't.

>Logically it will be over; it won't matter how you live your little life.

See my earlier comments on how it matters.

>OK so if everyone went on a murder spree, there would be nothing left. Well, that looks very much like what will happen anyway, maybe just a little sooner than predictions.

Where do you get that from?

>Can you see that I'm looking for something more than just because?

I can see that you're expressing a lot of dreary thoughts. Let me know if you acknowledge the more positive examples I've been giving.

>"BTW, some folks (including me) think it's possible for humanity to survive indefinitely." How can that be?

Well, I think that if we use our intelligences well enough, we can at least keep going past the end of Earth. (That requires travelling elsewhere, as noted above.) Personally, when I consider what has been discovered in just the past few hundred years, it is conceivable that we'll figure out, within a billion years or so, how to escape what presently looks like an inevitable heat-death of the universe.

>There's no scientific proof or postulate that supports this thinking.

Sure, there is.

>(Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that atheists in general also believe this?)

No, I'm not.

>Atheist (you more directly) believe that God doesn't exist

... okay so far ...

>because there's no scientific proof,

Whoops! That last clause is wrong-o. The distinction between atheist and theist does not refer to scientific proof, or proof at all.

That _I_ write about the scientific method, about evidence, or about proof does not mean that all atheists would. I am not a general spokesman for atheists (except as to the basic definition). Your apparent treatment of me as such a general spokesman does not make me one!

>yet you are willing to believe in something without scientific proof.

Okay.

>So there must be another reason you believe that God doesn't exist. Right?

I presume that by "exist", you are referring to existence outside the human mind in the sense that a table or a cloud exists.

I've seen evidence that God exista _as an idea in human minds_ (and have previously written that I accept that God exists as an idea), but no evidence that God exists outside of human minds. If you have evidence of the latter, please present it.

>Psychology is a "soft science", no hard facts, no proof, no true validation.

Not really, or at least it's becoming "harder". There's experimental evidence, facts, validation. It is more difficult to get these when the subject is a living human mind rather than inanimate objects, and the complications of that subject do not as readily lend themselves to clear-cut results as did Galileo's dropping weights from the Tower of Pisa, but personally I think the current status of psychology as a "hard" science is as good as was the status of astronomy as a "hard" science before the invention of the telescope.

>We accept that study, even though it's attempting to explain the stuff that . . . "I call anything I can't explain otherwise".

No, psychology does _not_ cover "anything that can't be explained otherwise". That is why I objected to your connection between psychology and my category C befoee, object now, and will continue to object as long as you misrepresent it.

As a trivial example, psychology does not include the study of the origins of our universe (which some people consider to involve God because they can't explain it otherwise). Cosmology does, but psychology doesn't.

>See the similarity.

I see a glaring flaw in your logic.

>True, psychology is examining a certain aspect of our lives, that is our behavior, but the methodology it uses to explain our behavior is similar to the theologians explaining the existence of God.

No, it isn't. Show me a theologian's scientific (e.g., describable, reproducible, independently verifiable, ...) experiment about the existence of God. Psychology has such experiments, but theology doesn't. They are _not_ using the same methods.

Do you want to imply that theology is a science? Sorry, but it's not.

>Same technique for explaining the unexplainable.

_No, it's not!_

It seems to me that you lack proper understanding of just what the scientific method is. If you think you do understand the scientific method, please define it in your own words.

>"Are you implying that the only reason theists (including yourself) have for valuing life is their belief in a god or gods, and that without it (i.e., if they were atheists), they would not have reason to value life?" Yes.

Again, I am astonished by your "Yes" answer.

Did those from whom you learned your religious beliefs teach you that life has no value without a god or gods? If not, how did you arrive at that idea?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

General comment on the idea that life is valueless without God (that is, God as existing in reality other than as an idea within the mind):

What a horribly fragile belief!

Anyone who teaches that to children as truth should be ... punished in some public manner sufficient to discourage anyone else from teaching such an anti-survival, anti-life philosophy.

If you believe that life is valueless without God, then the first time someone disproves the existence of God to your satisfaction -- *poof* -- you're left with no basis for living. Wow. What a fragile foundation.

I certainly wouldn't want _my_ children to depend upon a single idea for valuing their lives -- I would want their valuation of life to have a much sturdier foundation.

I can see that some people might want to teach such an idea in order to cause belivers to cling ferociously to the idea that God exists. I say: shame of those people for using such a destructive, negative tactic.

If one's foundation for belief in God (other than as an idea ...) is only that one has been taught that life is otherwise valueless, then clearly one has no defensible argument for the existence of God, and has been deprived of education as to other valuations of life.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

Flint,

"Probably the single strongest . . . fear of death to take."

The atheist doesn't fear death?

"And religion . . . . People enjoy feeling superior."

The atheist doesn't feel superior? You think you (personally Flint) aren't superior to bacteria?

"it allows the social power structure to control the entry portal to eternal life . . . Uh huh."

Seems like a rant for why you don't believe in organized religion. I have not stated any rules. I have stated I'm not discussing organized religion, just the existence of God (called it the universal one, the group conscience, not Buddha, not Jehovah, not Zeus, not any other deity, just a foundation for our spiritual self, our sub-conscious being). Why do you (personally, Flint) behave yourself? Do you do as you are told (by your inner voice) or do you reject that inner voice and do something contrary? What do you think that inner voice is?

Here's where your rant really becomes rancid. "Eternal misery" isn't anything close to what I've said. I spoke very briefly about Karma, that universal justice system. I believe in reincarnation. We get to do this over again until we get it right. I don't believe in hell. But I don't want to go there. I just want an explanation from you on your meaning of life. Why do you believe that God doesn't exist and yet you value life? Try not to be superficial.

"I'd never before heard the fantasy that if you don't believe as instructed, you will suddenly start behaving like such a complete jerk."

No where have I stated this. I'm not instructing anyone to believe anything or for anyone to start behaving any which way. I'm asking (seems only one person, NSP) for the connection he makes between his value of life and God's non-existence. (Sorry NSP, I get it - you don't profess to know the atheist creed and further there is no creed.)

"Meaning is something you find for yourself." The most important thing you wrote. Now dig a little deeper. I'm assuming that you have found meaning, regardless of your future heirs and your fear of death. Please explain.

Eve,

"What about a natural . . . NATURE? And when you speak of a "life-force" we're born with, it appears you understand this." Yes I do. Does the atheist? Further this nature, life-force that Rich spoke of, is God in my eyes. That interwoven fabric of life is God.

"Assuming it's natural for us to regard life as the highest value, then it follows logically for us to morally condemn anyone who consciously violates it." Is this the atheist viewpoint also? Again I believe that this "natural" as life held in the highest regard comes from God. Because of the group conscience, that interwoven being in each of us, that underlying cause for our inner voice individually, our individual lives interconnected with all other living organisms, we hold life in the highest regard. If you don't, then where does this natural feeling (belief) come from?

"What about an athiest's love of humanity leading him to do the same things? Just as valid? If not, why not?" It is just as valid. Does an atheist love humanity without believing in God? I say no but an atheist would have to answer that question.

"To live -- to appreciate life's good things, to continue to try to make life better for your self and loved ones -- through the sheer joy of it all. But you DO have a choice. If life becomes unbearable, you can choose to die. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, either. But those would be the exceptions -- certainly not the rule." Can't disagree with this. But to further explain my view read my response to your next message. It picked up on my thoughts.

"I understand the psychological need to think that someone's looking after us -- especially when life gets seemingly unbearable for us. I feel this need too. And it's very strong sometimes." I don't believe that "God is looking out for us". God doesn't have any emotional needs or doesn't think like we humans per say. Let me try to explain. We are God. The totality of the human species and living organisms is God. Not that any individual is God but all of nature is God. So since we think like humans and feel like humans to a certain extent God does have these qualities but God is more than us. Ok, think about the individual psyche, what psychologists have explained as conscience. I believe that this is a part of God. So all the individual needs to do is look within himself to find the answers. The individual can tap into that group conscience, since he is a part of it. The individual is looking "after" himself, when he looks to God for answers. (I'm sorry Eve, I need to run. Let me try to finish this later)

NSP, I really want to respond to you also. You have some good comments.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 21, 2001.

Maria--

I don't remember when this song came out--maybe early 60s. You have to hear it to get the full impact. Lee sings in a flat, listless voice that speaks of world-weariness and anomie. It is an anthem to nihilism, to existential dread, to post-coital depression, LOL.

I don't say that atheism leads everyone to that place. Clearly it does not.

Maybe Lee just needed Prozac.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IS THAT ALL THERE IS?, Peggy Lee

SPOKEN:

I remember when I was a very little girl, our house caught on fire. I'll never forget the look on my father's face as he gathered me up in his arms and raced through the burning building out to the pavement. I stood there shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames. And when it was all over I said to myself, "Is that all there is to a fire"

SUNG:

Is that all there is, is that all there is

If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing

Let's break out the booze and have a ball

If that's all there is

SPOKEN:

And when I was 12 years old, my father took me to a circus, the greatest show on earth. There were clowns and elephants and dancing bears. And a beautiful lady in pink tights flew high above our heads. And so I sat there watching the marvelous spectacle. I had the feeling that something was missing. I don't know what, but when it was over,

I said to myself, "is that all there is to a circus?

SUNG: Is that all there is, is that all there is

If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing

Let's break out the booze and have a ball

If that's all there is

SPOKEN: Then I fell in love, head over heels in love, with the most wonderful boy in the world. We would take long walks by the river or just sit for hours gazing into each other's eyes.

We were so very much in love.

Then one day he went away and I thought I'd die, but I didn't, and when I didn't I said to myself, "is that all there is to love?"

SUNG: Is that all there is, is that all there is

If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing

SPOKEN: I know what you must be saying to yourselves,

if that's the way she feels about it why doesn't she just end it all? Oh, no, not me. I'm in no hurry for that final disappointment,

for I know just as well as I'm standing here talking to you, when that final moment comes and I'm breathing my lst breath, I'll be saying to myself

SUNG:

Is that all there is, is that all there is

If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing

Let's break out the booze and have a ball

If that's all there is

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

Maria:

I'll give this my best shot, and try not to rant too much...

[Probably the single strongest . . . fear of death to take."

The atheist doesn't fear death?]

Like NSP, I can't speak for all athiests. The thought of death doesn't particularly bother me. As I said, it's inevitable and unavoidable, so why sweat it?

["And religion . . . . People enjoy feeling superior."

The atheist doesn't feel superior? You think you (personally Flint) aren't superior to bacteria?]

Athiests are people too. I've always felt that if bacteria have souls, then the afterlife would be rather crowded [grin].

["it allows the social power structure to control the entry portal to eternal life . . . Uh huh."

Seems like a rant for why you don't believe in organized religion...What do you think that inner voice is?]

Well, I answered this question already, but later on. So I'll wait until we get there. But for now, I admit I don't know what you mean by an inner voice. And "behave yourself" requires a larger context in this discussion. Everyone has behaviors, just like every day has weather. I try to adjust my behavior toward maximizing my progress toward my own goals. And not every goal I have is dictated by my medulla oblongata.

[Here's where your rant really becomes rancid. "Eternal misery" isn't anything close to what I've said. I spoke very briefly about Karma, that universal justice system. I believe in reincarnation.]

Well, I also gave one of the punishments for failing to believe properly as "returning to life as something unpleasant." But I admit I don't know whether reincarnation has anything analogous to the clearcut reward and punishment paradigm Christianity uses as a carrot and stick.

[I just want an explanation from you on your meaning of life. Why do you believe that God doesn't exist and yet you value life? Try not to be superficial.]

But you have now, at least by my reading, stacked the deck against me. You seem to be saying that without what you conceive to be God, life *must* be superficial. And therefore any answer I give is necessarily superficial unless I agree to the necessity of your God. That's not fair.

Yet I work at many things that have great value to me. I want to be the best husband I possibly can for my wonderful wife, in *her* eyes. I want to learn as much as I can absorb, and think through as much of it as possible. I want to do my job as skillfully as I can, and increase my skills every day. I like to test all my ideas to see where they fall short so I can improve them. I want to experience a wide variety of things, to build perspective and collect memories to treasure and integrate. I want to do what I can to help those around me live better lives. This list could go on and on, but already I hope you can see that it's possible to find real value and meaning in these activities.

["I'd never before heard the fantasy that if you don't believe as instructed, you will suddenly start behaving like such a complete jerk."

No where have I stated this.]

I beg to differ. You have said that an athiest (who doesn't believe in any god) will go on some kind of rape and murder spree! I keep trying to point out that you are surrounded by athiests, none of whom behave in this manner. Athiests are not overrepresented among the very few who try these things, nor are such people content, nor is lack of belief in god ever used by any of them as a justification. Where could you possibly have gotten such a strange notion?

[I'm not instructing anyone to believe anything or for anyone to start behaving any which way.]

I didn't say you were instructing anyone, I said YOU were instructed. After all, none of the beliefs you can't accept others might not share, are in any way original.

[I'm asking (seems only one person, NSP) for the connection he makes between his value of life and God's non-existence.]

But these two are not connected at all. Why should NSP or anyone else make such a connection? A great passion for life has been common in all human societies, however many gods they might choose to recognize, from zero to hundreds!

["Meaning is something you find for yourself." The most important thing you wrote. Now dig a little deeper. I'm assuming that you have found meaning, regardless of your future heirs and your fear of death. Please explain.]

I did so above. I derive meaning, satisfaction, reward, richness and depth from many many things, and these are *real* things, not in any way imaginary. I sincerely don't see how a belief in any particular god(s) even helps me set goals, much less find great value in making progress toward those goals. I can assure you that your requirement to create some God or other overriding purpose for life is as foreign to me as my entirely human goals are to you. It strikes me as rather ludicrous, but even worse, *unnecessary*. Excess baggage. Life is just too valuable to waste time and effort dreaming up imaginary gods without which life loses value! What have you gained?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 21, 2001.

"I find it interesting that YNGMW and Tar have not joined in."

Well, honeybunch, I've been busy with my offline life, including a funeral for a relative and dealing with my mother's business and finances, since she's presently in the hospital. When I can catch up with this thread and a half, (perhaps by this weekend) then I'll ask people to repost their questions for me. Until then, you'll just have to get along without me, okay?

Besides, I think I have a rape and murder spree pending on my social calendar.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 21, 2001.

What an unadulterated asshole you are. Your comment regarding a rape spree was a telltale sign of just how ignorant you really are.

-- (spams@a.friend), March 21, 2001.

"What an unadulterated asshole you are. Your comment regarding a rape spree was a telltale sign of just how ignorant you really are."

Unadulterated asshole? Go fuck yourself. Blanket comments about how atheists are capable of indiscriminate rape and murder are obvious (forget telltale) signs of just how ignorant, close-minded and hate- filled THOSE posters actually are. And if you can't see that, then you're all of the above and a hypocrite, to boot.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 21, 2001.

Boot it up you ass you flint wannabe.

-- (boot@this.ha), March 21, 2001.

Anyhoot didnt you state you had some rape and murder spree to attend to? Oh I forgot you are too busy stealing your sick momma's money.

-- (boot@this.ha), March 21, 2001.

If this is an example of xtian love and kindness, then I am proud indeed to be an atheist.

Xtians claiming that atheists have no reason not to engage in rape and murder sprees? Another poster, who may or may not be an xtian, claiming that I'm stealing my sick mother's money?

And then you wonder why some people want nothing to do with religion.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 22, 2001.

Mornin' Maria,

Your comments are in brackets...

[Does the atheist (understand the life force within us)?]

If by “life-force” we mean the desire to live and let live – then I would assume almost all of them do. At least every one I’ve ever known and read does/did. In any case, I don’t understand why that wouldn’t be a natural assumption. Also, I count myself with those groups in this context, because my deism/agnosticism doesn’t leave room for any sort of active “God” who would dictate morality, give revelations or interfere with existence or life, post-“creation.” My only allowance for God is in the way of a possible First Cause of existence – if that. Beyond that -- well, I guess I just don't understand the concept.

I had said, "Assuming it's natural for us to regard life as the highest value, then it follows logically for us to morally condemn anyone who consciously violates it."

Then you replied, [Is this the atheist viewpoint also?]

It is for objectivists (see the link I provided) and I would assume for most non-objectivists who are atheists -- e.g., those who live by the golden rule, and other humanist ethics.

[Because of the group conscience, that interwoven being in each of us, that underlying cause for our inner voice individually, our individual lives interconnected with all other living organisms, we hold life in the highest regard. If you don't, then where does this natural feeling (belief) come from?]

I have no idea what you mean by “group conscience.” As far as I can see, there's no evidence for anything like this. I mean, when you decide to drive to work do you hear other voices (NOT your own conscience) telling you to stay home? What happens when the “group” is almost evenly split? I know you can't take a vote if it's "everybody" but what do you do? PLEASE don’t take this as sarcasm. I realize I'm kinda taking this to an absurd level, but I feel I have to do this in order to clearly understand what you’re talking about.

[We are God. The totality of the human species and living organisms is God. Not that any individual is God but all of nature is God. So since we think like humans and feel like humans to a certain extent God does have these qualities but God is more than us.]

This sounds like “panentheism.” Are you a “panentheist”? (That’s where you believe God is simply everything, but something more as well).

[Ok, think about the individual psyche, what psychologists have explained as conscience. I believe that this is a part of God. So all the individual needs to do is look within himself to find the answers. The individual can tap into that group conscience, since he is a part of it. The individual is looking "after" himself, when he looks to God for answers.]

I think you’re really starting to lose me now. Why are all these complications necessary? Why is it so difficult to accept that the evidence so far shows that there’s most likely just us as individuals? I mean, you’ve got all kinds of other people, as well as God directly involved in -- and/or as an integral part of -- your thought processes – how can you even locate the real “you” in there anywhere?

Again, Maria – there comments are made with all due respect for you and your beliefs – - I hopre you don’t take offense. It’s just that I’m here to learn and share, and I’ve gotta be honest – (as I know you are) -- and call ‘em like I see ‘em.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 22, 2001.

Flint, you hit it.

Yes I realize that I define God my own way and I agree that I'm starting from a premise that atheists do in fact believe in God. But I'm open to trying to understand their point of view.

You talked about your relationship with your wife. That (IMO) has at its core God. We have various pieces to our being, the physical body, our mind which has many functions one of them to support our physical (interpret the various wavelengths of light and sound, control heartbeat, others) and also to support our thoughts for reasoning and logic. But we also have a spiritual part to our being. I almost want to stop using the words God and spirit to avoid the interpretation of organized religion but the English language is so limited. (after all, what was an aeroplane before it was invented. retorical, don't answer :) Ever wonder why you need relationships to feel complete? That IMO is our soul seeking to fulfill our ultimate goals in life.

Sorry got to go. Flint, your answer wasn't at all superficial and I think I see the contradiction. Personal FWIW, I was brought up Catholic. I (around 10 years old) once asked the priest, "who am I?" My girl friend standing next to me looked at me funny as if to say your Maria. The priest answer pretty clearly about the spirit. I rejected the Catholic teachings in my late teens. Didn't believe many of its aspect and I didn't believe in God. But after I said that out loud and even doubted that belief. God isn't what the reigion taught me and it was. So after all these years, I realized that it's the storytelling stuff that I didn't swallow but the foundation of their explanation of the spirit is pretty accurate.

Now i really got to go.

Lars, I like the song.

Eve forgot to say... Yeah, it's a Woody Allen type. :)

YNGMW, hope you see the contradiction that I was trying to make. Don't make that raping spree too long, you'll have a lot of Karma to answer to.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 22, 2001.

NSP >>>Do you think the reality of death makes life valueless?

>>>I'm surprised by your response. I expected ... well, never mind.

If life had no other meaning, then the answer is yes logically and scientifically. But I believe that life does have a higher meaning. Does this qualification help? The answer to your question depends on your belief system. I don't believe that we die. We do live on. We being our spirit, our sub-conscious mind, our thoughts. [BTW I read a book once, (can't find it now) that scientifically (from a mathematical and astrophysical standpoint) proved the existence of God.]

>>>I have been clinically depressed; my words came from my personal experience.

Do you mind if I explore that? You don't have to answer. Briefly, what helped you find "your way back" out of the abyss?

>>>That's several billion years away. Are you basing your valuation of your present life on what will happen that far in the future?

My question was what and to whom does it matter and I'm not basing it on the future but eternity. Even though several billion years seems like a long time, it is finite. Infinite is something much larger, drilled into me with a bachelor's in math. I also have a master's in space engineering. I value education, for its own value and to help me attain a higher consciousness. (LOL that does sound funny but the higher consciousness is God. I've got to stop saying God; I'm just going to say it from now on because it sounds as if I support organized religion.)

>>>(Gaaackkk! The burden of representing a whole category! ;-)

No pressure there! :) I really appreciate your engaging me in this discussion. Got it, you don't speak for all atheists and I guess the same for me, that is, I don't speak for all theists.

>>>So, do you, like myself, support a long-term program of space exploration and colonization of other inhabitable planets, so that the human race has somewhere else to live when the Sun heats up a few billion years from now?

Speaking from my study of space, I don't see this happening. (But what do I know! :) We can barely get a spacecraft up without exorbitant amounts of money, technology and political support. Space travel doesn't happen the way most people think, it's not a straight line. The motion of a rocket takes an elliptical orbit around a heavenly body. To move from that frame of reference (in math terms, translation), the rocket must jump to a hyperbolic trajectory, it can never attain a straight line. (Space and time is curved from Steven Hawking.) The closest galaxy is light years away (I can't remember but I think it's in the hundreds). This means that we will need to travel through space by some other means than we know today. Einstein said that we could never travel at the speed of light. But maybe we will learn more about tele-transport and it could happen. I'm just a bit skeptical. Also, the current thinking is that the universe will (like a rubber band) begin to contract. It's in its stretching mode now and it will begin contracting when it reaches its limits. Can we survive a contracting universe? Don't know.

>>>Don't you live life to your "own cause", which apparently includes a belief in God and some associated religion (which you need not specify, as you noted earlier)? If so, then why shouldn't I, or anyone else, live life to my own cause (which may include a different set of beliefs)?

I think we're getting to the crux of my beliefs. We do have a personal cause and we (spiritually) set that cause (goal) prior to entering the material world. This is the basis for destiny. We are pre-destined for a certain vocation, to find relationships with certain other spirits, and to improve our true self. Sometimes we meet those goals; sometimes we fall short. If we listen to our inner voice, quite our mind (the thing that keeps chattering away with the day-to-day activities) and let our thoughts flow, we can discover who we are and what makes us happy, our higher purpose. Are we actually doing in life what we originally set out to do? Is the person sharing my life with me the person I need? Am I doing what I need to do for this person? Have I fulfilled his or her needs? This applies to all our relationships; parents, siblings, and children.

Personally, I feel that I have fulfilled my goals wrt (with respect to) my mother. We had an unbelievably difficult relationship; I've made the amends and I think helped her soul to let go of the destructive parts of her life. Now would I need to do this if there weren't a God? I don't think so. So what if she died without resolving her internal conflict? So what, if I didn't resolve our relationship? If this didn't occur, I wouldn't affect anything in this physical world, no future generations would have any knowledge of this and emotionally I could handle life and get over it. She would die and that would be the end of her conflict. No big deal. But I believe that I fulfilled one of my pre-destined goals. This is an example of our higher purpose to life. Not the superficial reasons we've been discussing. And at the very basis of this, the very foundation of our soul, is God, oops I mean it. >yet you are willing to believe in something without scientific proof.

>>>I've seen evidence that God exista _as an idea in human minds_ (and have previously written that I accept that God exists as an idea), but no evidence that God exists outside of human minds. If you have evidence of the latter, please present it.

Concepts can be based on science or faith. You didn't answer the implied question. How can you accept certain things with no scientific basis (me referring to immortality of humans) and dismiss other things (it) with no scientific basis? It seems contradictory to me but I guess you are entitled to your opinions. Again there must be some other reason (besides the lack of evidence) that you don't believe in God. Can you explain?

>We accept that study, even though it's attempting to explain the stuff that . . . "I call anything I can't explain otherwise".

>>>No, psychology does _not_ cover "anything that can't be explained otherwise". That is why I objected to your connection between psychology and my category C befoee, object now, and will continue to object as long as you misrepresent it.

>>>As a trivial example, psychology does not include the study of the origins of our universe (which some people consider to involve God because they can't explain it otherwise). Cosmology does, but psychology doesn't.

Psychology is the study of concepts or ideas. True there may be an experiment or two, but when we study something we change the very thing we're studying making our "experiment" invalid. I'm just looking at that aspect of psychology, the study of human behavior as more abstract than hard science, the things that need to be explained a different way from hard sciences. Who knows, maybe in the future we will invent an apparatus that will show evidence of God, just as the invention of the telescope provided more info for astrophysics. Now do you see how similarities?

>>>Do you want to imply that theology is a science? Sorry, but it's not.

Sorry, some people would most definitely disagree with you. (I wish I could find that book! I can't even remember the author but he had outlined a very scientific explanation of God). We are advancing our concepts (just as we have with psychology - we have come a long way from Freud) in the study of God and all the philosophy associated with it.

>>>It seems to me that you lack proper understanding of just what the scientific method is. If you think you do understand the scientific method, please define it in your own words.

How would you like me to begin? I can most definitely prove or disprove mathematical theorems. I've done some of them in my sleep. Is that the scientific method you'd like me to explain? I have conducted psychology experiments, with control groups, in college also. Would you want me to go into those details also? It seems to me that you are so set against God that you will not accept anything to advance our knowledge of it (either for or against). I may be wrong but it's how I'm interpreting your response.

". . . If one's foundation for belief in God (other than as an idea ...) is only that one has been taught that life is otherwise valueless, then clearly one has no defensible argument for the existence of God, and has been deprived of education as to other valuations of life."

After reading this rant I guess I need to ask you what is your definition (the concept in your mind) of God?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 22, 2001.

My children,

It pleases me to see you exercise the finite minds which I have given unto you by trying to grasp the infinite. But please, don't knock yourselves out. You cannot know the UNKNOWABLE.

Kick back, have a beer.

-- (GOD@My.lair), March 22, 2001.

Maria,

Regarding a certain part of our exchange:

I originally asked, in order to clarify an earlier statement: "Do you think the reality of death makes life valueless?"

You replied: "In a word yes."

I commented that I was surprised by that answer, and asked the question again, "Do you _really_ think that the reality of death makes life valueless?"

You responded with: "If life had no other meaning, then the answer is yes logically and scientifically" [I disagree with that, but that's a side branch to explore later.], and added "But I believe that life does have a higher meaning. Does this qualification help?"

Well, that qualification revises your earlier "In a word yes" answer -- so much so that I think you should have answered, "No, because ..." instead. Your current answer is along the lines that I expected when I wrote that I was surprised by your "yes" answer.

Okay, so let's look at your current revised answer (to the question "Do you think the reality of death makes life valueless?"):

[I edited your statements to produce the following.] >If life had no other meaning, then the answer is yes logically and scientifically. But I believe that life does have a higher meaning. I don't believe that we die. We do live on. We being our spirit, our sub-conscious mind, our thoughts.

It seems to me that this essentially (adequately for my reasons for asking) answers my question with "No, the reality of death does not make life valueless". Is that interpretation correct, as far as it goes?

- - -

Now, let's look at your recent answer from another angle.

>I don't believe that we die. We do live on. We being our spirit, our sub-conscious mind, our thoughts.

But earlier, near the top of this thread, you wrote "For we and every other living organism (including the planet) will die" and "When the end of our life comes, we turn to dust."

On the face of it, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Is that because your earlier statements were conditioned on the nonexistence of God, because your earlier statements were your paraphrase of what you thought an atheist might say, because your earlier statements were intended to refer only to the "material" body but not the "spirit", "sub-conscious mind", or "thoughts", or what?

>[BTW I read a book once, (can't find it now) that scientifically (from a mathematical and astrophysical standpoint) proved the existence of God.]

Yeah, I remember (IIRC, title was "The Physics of Immortality") -- I didn't read it, but read several reviews. Reviewers pointed out several flaws in the author's arguments.

>Do you mind if I explore that? You don't have to answer. Briefly, what helped you find "your way back" out of the abyss?

Medicine and therapy. The newest selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (the most well-known of which is Prozac, but there are other chemical relatives available) appear to be capable of maintaining my neurochemistry levels within normal ranges, so my doctors have said there is a good chance that if I continue to take a small maintenance dose I may never again have another serious bout of depression the rest of my life. Along with that, cognitive therapy.

>bachelor's in math. I also have a master's in space engineering.

If my first bout of clinical depression hadn't interfered with my formal education, I'd have my B.Sci. in math from Caltech, plus higher degrees in astronomy and computer science.

>Speaking from my study of space, I don't see this happening.

Well, I meant that it would have to be a _long_-term program.

>Space and time is curved from Steven Hawking.

A. Einstein said it first. :-)

>The closest galaxy is light years away (I can't remember but I think it's in the hundreds).

Our Milky Way galaxy has several small satellite galaxies at distances on the order of 100,000 light-years from us. M31, the closest galaxy of size comparable to Milky Way's, is about two million light-years away.

But there is evidence of planetary systems around stars much closer than those, some as close as 8-10 light-years. Google.com has a page of links for the category Science > Astronomy > Extrasolar Planets at http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Astronomy/Extrasolar_Planets/

>the current thinking is that the universe will (like a rubber band) begin to contract. It's in its stretching mode now and it will begin contracting when it reaches its limits.

Well, a couple of decades ago it was still thought that there was a chance that the universe had enough matter to eventually stop its expansion by force of gravity.

However, more recent astronomical measurements have found that there is not enough matter to halt the expansion by gravity. In the past 3-4 years, studies of distant supernovae have led to the conclusion that there seems to be a repulsive force at work that is accelerating the expansion faster than gravity could decelerate it.

The January 2001 issue of Scientific American has a section of articles with summaries of these findings.

>>>>Don't you live life to your "own cause", which apparently includes a belief in God and some associated religion (which you need not specify, as you noted earlier)? If so, then why shouldn't I, or anyone else, live life to my own cause (which may include a different set of beliefs)?

>think we're getting to the crux of my beliefs. We do have a personal cause and we (spiritually) set that cause (goal) prior to entering the material world.

I was referring to your first March 21 posting where you wrote "What is that extra something that prevents the atheist from living life to his own cause?" I was trying to find out what you meant by "own cause" and why you think an atheist is prevented from "living life to his own cause". Will you please explain those?

>my goals wrt (with respect to) my mother. We had an unbelievably difficult relationship; I've made the amends and I think helped her soul to let go of the destructive parts of her life. Now would I need to do this if there weren't a God?

Yes.

>I don't think so.

What? Surely you would care about your mother even if there were no God, wouldn't you?

I care about my mother and other relatives, without needing some God to cause me to do so.

Are you or other theists so empty of innate familial emotions that you require an outside force to cause you to care about your relatives? I doubt that. So if not, why don't you think you would need to make amends or help her let go of destructive stuff if there weren't a God?

Did someone teach you that wanting to have good family relations and caring about the feelings of relatives required the existence of God?

>So what if she died without resolving her internal conflict?

You mean you wouldn't care about her feelings if you didn't believe in God?

>So what, if I didn't resolve our relationship?

You mean you wouldn't care about your relationship with your mother if you didn't believe in God?

>If this didn't occur, I wouldn't affect anything in this physical world,

It would make a difference in what she and you decided to do, which would have effects on still others, and so forth. Why do you think that wouldn't happen if you didn't believe in God? Were you taught that?

>no future generations would have any knowledge of this

Of course they would, if you have relationships to other people.

>and emotionally I could handle life and get over it.

Maybe, or maybe you wouldn't be able to do that.

>She would die and that would be the end of her conflict. No big deal.

Do you really think you have so little regard for your mother that you, without some belief in a supernatural being, would think it no big deal not to have resolved your difficulties with her? Modern psychology says otherwise.

>But I believe that I fulfilled one of my pre-destined goals. This is an example of our higher purpose to life.

It's an example of good mental health.

>You didn't answer the implied question.

What was the implied question?

>How can you accept certain things with no scientific basis (me referring to immortality of humans) and dismiss other things (it) with no scientific basis?

May I have a more clear-cut question or questions?

In the first part of your question, do you mean "with no scientific basis" to refer to "accept" or "certain things"? In the second part, do you mean "with no scientific basis" to refer to "dismiss" or "other things"?

And ... I don't see why you want to play games with "God"/"it". The title topic of this thread (the original part) was about "God".

- - -

I have to go now - got a call about something. Will continue this response later.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 22, 2001.

NSP,

I've enjoyed reading this thread immensely. Thanks for partaking.

I'd like to respond to a question you just posed to Maria:

Are you or other theists so empty of innate familial emotions that you require an outside force to cause you to care about your relatives?

Please understand I speak for myself only and all I write is based upon my own experiences, my interpretation of said experiences, and a heavy dose of conjecture.

"God" is not an outside force, but instead a force (life-force) which flows through all creation. A conscious energy, if you will. The sanskrit term Maya speaks to the illusion that we exist separate and apart from this Source. Maya tells us that duality is a fraud. That this truth of oneness is veiled from us, by us, due to our own ignorance of its existence.

When I was oblivious to this life-force energy, the world was a very lonely place. I felt no connection to people - family inclusive. As a youngster I knew deep inside that we are all connected, but I experienced no manifestation of it. I searched for many years, vainly, to learn both why I felt no connection with others, and how to catalyze this process. Stranger in a strange land (not a Heinlein ref) was I.

And then IT happened. Every single day I am grateful for the awareness of our connectedness. And although I have many miles to tread, many lessons to learn, I look forward to each and every day's adventure.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 22, 2001.

From the song "Is That All There Is":

"...if that's the way she feels about it why doesn't she just end it all? Oh, no, not me. I'm in no hurry for that final disappointment..."

I've always loved that line. Thanks for posting that, Lars.

When I was 8 years old I prayed to God for a BB gun for Christmas. I wasn't really religious, my immediate family didn't go to church, but my grandparents did. My mother didn't want me to have one, so I figured I needed to call in the big guns and pray if I were to have any chance at all at getting one. It worked in a sense, I did get the gun - from my grandpa.

After about 6 months of shooting everything in site, I grew rather bored with the gun, and asked myself, in a sense, "Is that all there is to a BB gun?"

The next Christmas I prayed for a mini-bike, but my grandpa had died the previous summer.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 22, 2001.

NSP,

Could I care about my mother without a God? No, not in my meaning above. The source of my care for her comes from God. I really didn't need to help my mother in the way I described above. It wasn't vital to her well being, her physical and emotional needs. However I reached her spiritual self, something you don't believe in. So of course I care about my family. Of course I want to ensure their health and safety that has nothing to do with God. But I went beyond that to support her in a spiritual sense. You don't believe people need that kind of support. I do. You wouldn't have provided that kind of care. I did.

I'm beginning to get understand your point of view. I was wrong. A atheist can value life without a belief in God. What they value is limited to the physical and emotional level. Do I have that right?

(Side comment but topic for another thread: what we once thought were truths are proved through science as false. Sometimes it goes around full circle. This pertains to the universe expanding thing. Case in point, carbs are bad, carbs are good, now carbs are bad, oops wait a minute carbs are good.)

Great words Rich.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 22, 2001.

Eve,

Sorry, Eve, you caught half an explanation; I shouldn't have posted it. Let me begin again. Also, reread what Rich wrote about life force.

Ever wonder why sometimes you and a friend have the same thought? Coincidence you might say. I don't think so. It happens too many times for me with people to whom I am connected. I think that when we have the same thought, we are tapping into the "universal thought", a plane different from our four dimensions. Some have explained this as the fifth dimension or something beyond our five senses, a sixth sense. Even though NSP may disagree, some scientific evidence does support these concepts.

As I stated in my response to Flint (sorry I was in a hurry and it seems incoherent now that I reread it), we have three components to our individual being; mind, body, and spirit or soul. I believe our sub-conscious mind is our view into our soul. We can go there, visit it and talk to it. If we stop long enough to listen, we can also hear responses from it. It is this place where we find the universal conscience. We can only see it in our mind's eye; so in "real" terms it contains our thoughts. Our thoughts make up this fifth dimension or sixth sense.

Do you follow so far? I hate to go on without the feedback so I can delve deeper into a particular aspect.

So as Rich has explained (by a radio wave analogy) we can tap into this. We can receive thoughts. Ever wonder about loved ones who have passed? Why is it that sometimes these spirits (or entities if you like that term better) enter our thoughts? I believe that we are receiving some of their "radio waves"; we are receiving their thoughts and can hear their message if we stop to listen. When my uncle died, my aunt (his wife) who had passed many years earlier kept coming into my mind. It didn't hit me till later what she wanted to tell me. She was warning me of his imminent passing. Hog wash you say. No I firmly believe this was the reason for her entering my thoughts. Just as my thoughts are a part of this universal plane, so are other individuals' thoughts are part of the plane. We have many inhabitants in four dimensions; we also have many inhabitants in the other plane. I feel the same for people who have died. Their entity doesn't die. Their physical and conscious mind turns to dust, not their soul, these thoughts.

So who are we? Ever wonder why you enjoy certain things in life? You excel at some things and are really awful at others. I enjoy math. I could study it the rest of my life and feel content. The things in which you find joy begin to define who you are spiritually. These things have nothing to do with the physical or emotional; they go deeper to your sub-conscious mind. I mentioned above that prior to entering this physical plane, we decided how we want to live our lives. We make agreements with other spirits (those who will end up being in our physical lives) to support us in one way or another. This, to me, explains why sometimes when meeting someone for the first I get the feeling that we meet some place before. There seems to be an initial connection to that person, an instant like or an instant dislike. If it's a dislike, then I need to discover how to correct it and make it better. It may be that I need to pay back some Karma to this person, a pre-destined goal. People spend much of their life seeking that one relationship to complete themselves. To me, this represents the destiny of our spiritual self. We know deep down, by contacting that inner voice, how we should interact with this other spirit. Is it the right one? Look to yourself for the answers. How do I need to solve a problem in this relationship? Ask your sub-conscious mind to find the answers. God is that spiritual plane. Is that all there is? No. Let me know what you think so far.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 22, 2001.

"YNGMW, hope you see the contradiction that I was trying to make."

No, I don't see any contradiction at all. All I see is a pile of hateful, blanket assumptions about atheists. You ought to be ashamed, Maria. Go ask your god for forgiveness, because you'll get none from me. And while you're at it, ask for some of his wisdom and kindness, because you were obviously out sick that day in Sunday school.

"Don't make that raping spree too long, you'll have a lot of Karma to answer to."

What an evil cow you are, Maria. It is behavior and statements like that which only serve to convince me that membership in a church and belief in some sort of mythical deity will only make me a worse human being. If you have to slam the beliefs/nonbeliefs of others, then you must not be very secure in your own belief system.

And if I shared such a hateful, spiteful, closed-minded belief system, I'd feel pretty insecure about it too, since there's no logical or reasonable defense or rationalization for it.

Shame on you, Maria.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 22, 2001.

Maria,

Just some quick notes after I scanned what's been added, thnn I gotta go again:

>support her in a spiritual sense. You don't believe people need that kind of support.

False.

Did it even occur to you that you might _ask_ me whether that were true, before just bluntly declaring it?

Once again you seem to be stretching so much to portray atheists as less worthy or decent people than theists that you don't bother to determine whether you have the facts straight before declaring a conclusion. Please stop that.

>You wouldn't have provided that kind of care.

Wow. Do you have such a need to portray me negatively that you won't even exercise the common courtesy of _asking_ me whether that might be true rather than just bluntly stating it as though it were an established fact?

>A atheist can value life without a belief in God. What they value is limited to the physical and emotional level. Do I have that right?

Your eagerness to portray atheists as limited is quite blatent throughout your posting.

Please tell us all of the levels you recognize and define, in regard to your sentence above about "limited to the physical and emotional level".

>(Side comment but topic for another thread: what we once thought were truths are proved through science as false.

May we have an example?

The scientific attitude is to be willing to adopt new ideas when they are shown to be more true than old ones.

>Sometimes it goes around full circle. This pertains to the universe expanding thing. Case in point, carbs are bad, carbs are good, now carbs are bad, oops wait a minute carbs are good.)

But you've left out the details of qualification which distinguish between those cases.

If you leave out enough details, then, sure, you can make it seem that those views swung back and forth without advancing. But that's not intellectually honest.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 22, 2001.

If God is love, and God is everything, the everything is love. Anything other than love cannot be real.

And all of this illusion, in order to suppress the oneness, so the singularity can have someone to talk to, to share with, to care for, to fret over, to mother, to father, to love.

-- ¤Ÿ¤ (@@...), March 22, 2001.

Maria,

You said,

[...we have three components to our individual being; mind, body, and spirit or soul. I believe our sub-conscious mind is our view into our soul. We can go there, visit it and talk to it. If we stop long enough to listen, we can also hear responses from it. It is this place where we find the universal conscience. We can only see it in our mind's eye; so in "real" terms it contains our thoughts. Our thoughts make up this fifth dimension or sixth sense.]

I view mind, spirit and soul (and consciousness) as the exact same thing viewed from slightly different perspectives. I’m just not able to split them apart.

A preliminary question for you...If our thoughts make up this “fifth dimension”, what is the nature and function of the “we” (“...we can go there...”) that you refer to?

Rich,

Would you (or Maria) repost your "life-force" analogy? I missed it and can't readily locate it. Thanks.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 23, 2001.

Eve, please send me an e-mail at maria947@hotmail.com; we can continue there.

NSP, I thought you didn't beleive in the supernatural; spirit is the "supernatural".

YNGMW seems to have lots of conflict. You need some guidance.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 23, 2001.

Maria, I e-mailed you a few days ago; you didn't respond. I'll try again.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 23, 2001.

I probably heard this somewhere before and it just popped up from my subconscious mind. I think of God as a tree and we individual spirits are the leaves on that tree. We are all connected to each other through the source (the tree). The leaves are unique with their own identity. We value life because not only for our own goals but also because of this connection and the universal goal of the tree. If we harm others, we end up harming ourselves. The harm is returned to us (Karma). This is why we value life and our main purpose in life is to grow spiritually, to evolve our spirit. We do this directly by what we do on earth and how we relate to other spirits.

Eve, you're right; the mind, body and spirit are intertwined. However, the mind and body are finite and the spirit is infinite. When the physical body and mind die, the spirit remains as part of the eternal consciousness (the tree). (sorry, I never got the email.)

NSP, Flint, I no longer need to find out why some people can believe that God doesn't exist. Thank you for helping me understand your point of view.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 23, 2001.

Eve, the analogy is in my post near the very top of this thread.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 23, 2001.

Got it. Thanks, Rich. As soon as I submit this, it'll be on its way to my completely beat up circa 1988 briefcase; and from there to my completely beat up circa 1986 Honda.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 23, 2001.

TRY=JOHN 3:16 ''FOR GOD SO LOVED.............. ..............THAT HE GAVE...............

saves alot of brain-strain...

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 23, 2001.

As of Fri Mar 23 15:06:39 CST 2001 :



# Lines:          # Posts:         Name:
----------------  ------------     ------------------------
   551 (34.0%)     13 (24.5%)      maria (anon@ymous.com)
   527 (32.5%)      6 (11.3%)      no spam please 
   133 ( 8.2%)      6 (11.3%)      eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com)
   130 ( 8.0%)      3 ( 5.7%)      flint (flintc@mindspring.com)
    81 ( 5.0%)      4 ( 7.5%)      rich (howe9@shentel.net)
    79 ( 4.9%)      5 ( 9.4%)      lars (larsguy@yahoo.com)
    41 ( 2.5%)      4 ( 7.5%)      you're not getting my wallet 
    24 ( 1.5%)      2 ( 3.8%)      bemused (and_amazed@you.people)
    23 ( 1.4%)      1 ( 1.9%)      jcl jockey (wethrive@nstress.com)
     7 ( 0.4%)      2 ( 3.8%)      al-d (dogs@zianet.com)
     6 ( 0.4%)      1 ( 1.9%)      ñŸñ (@@...)
     6 ( 0.4%)      1 ( 1.9%)      (god@my.lair)
     5 ( 0.3%)      2 ( 3.8%)      (boot@this.ha)
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.9%)      tarzan the ape man   
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.9%)      (spams@a.friend)
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.9%)      (@ .)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 23, 2001.

"YNGMW seems to have lots of conflict. You need some guidance."

I need no guidance from the likes of you, Maria. You claim to want to engage atheists in conversation, but you'd rather put words in our mouths and make blanket statements about how we would all like to go on murderous rampages and rape sprees. And I'm supposed to agree with you? You must be totally bug-nuts.

I'm fine with my atheism. You, obviously, are not. But then again, you don't have to be.

"I no longer need to find out why some people can believe that God doesn't exist."

Oh, I think you needed to find out why at all. I think you were looking for some validation of your own beliefs. I hope you found it.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 23, 2001.

Maria,

>NSP, I thought you didn't beleive in the supernatural;

I don't.

>spirit is the "supernatural"

Well, "spirit" has more than one definition. At least one fits the category of supernatural, but at least one other definition does not.

What's your point?

Are you trying to twist my complaint about the falsity of your assertion "You don't believe people need that kind of support" into some assertion that I believe in the supernatural? Are you willing to answer this question or the questions I asked earlier about who taught you certain beliefs?

- - -

Regarding some comments you addressed to Eve:

"Ever wonder why sometimes you and a friend have the same thought? ... tapping into the 'universal thought', ... Even though NSP may disagree, some scientific evidence does support these concepts."

A) Why should we think you qualified to proclaim what evidence is "scientific"? Do you understand how the scientific method is designed to prevent people from deceiving themselves? If so, explain it in your own words.

B) What there _is_ abundant scientific evidence for is that people have a great capacity for deceiving themselves about stuff like your idea of "universal thought", or about spirits or souls.

>Ever wonder about loved ones who have passed? Why is it that sometimes these spirits (or entities if you like that term better) enter our thoughts?

Because we remember the loved ones who have passed away.

Reality of our memories does not constitute proof of reality of spirits.

>I believe that we are receiving some of their "radio waves";

Is "receiving some of their 'radio waves'" your synonym for "recalling some of our memories of them"?

>we are receiving their thoughts and can hear their message if we stop to listen.

Are the phrases "receiving their thoughts" and "hear their message" also part of your personal set of synonyms for "recalling our memories of them"?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 28, 2001.