Reality is the best religion

Is religion isn’t real, what good is it? Not much. Admittedly, believing in something that isn’t real can make you feel better and offer consolation when life is tough. It is easier to accept a tragedy if this is taken to be “God’s will.” And instead of feeling powerless to change an unfortunate situation, many people embrace prayer as a way to call a higher power into action.

Similarly, children ask Santa Claus to bring them presents from the North Pole. They also put newly lost baby teeth under their pillows and expect that the Tooth Fairy will reward them. What difference is there between a childish belief in beings for whom there is no evidence of reality, and an adult belief in a God who can’t be proven to exist?

As we grow older, we should become wiser. The essence of wisdom is knowing the difference between reality and unreality. There’s nothing wrong with embracing fantasy—this is a creative wellspring for artists and writers—but let’s not call this wisdom. Socrates was fond of pointing out that a wise person knows when he doesn’t know something, while a fool is ignorantly confident of his false conceptions.

I recently watched a Bill Moyers interview of the renowned zoologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins spoke eloquently about how the richness of reality is sufficient to keep us enthralled for the rest of our individual lifetimes, and likely for the lifetime of humanity as a whole. Science has learned much about reality, but with every step forward on the path of knowledge more mysteries come into view.

I love this quote from the physicist John Wheeler: “We live on an island of knowledge surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does our shore of ignorance.” Human ignorance is going to expand naturally as our ability to contact reality in more breadth and depth grows. When the first interstellar explorers begin to survey the 100 billion or more stars in the Milky Way galaxy, the truth that we know astoundingly little about even our own immediate environs in the universe will hit home.

It is crazy, then, that so many Americans choose to deny what is already known about reality. If someone starving were to throw away the few morsels of food in his possession because he believed that the mirage of a banquet could sustain him, we’d say “That guy is out of his mind.” So what should we say about the 55% of Americans who, according to a recent poll, believe that God created humans in our present form?

Obviously, they are out of their minds, at least in this regard. The scientific evidence for evolution is unquestionable. To call it a “theory” is the same as calling the law of gravity a theory. Significant details remain to be worked out in each case (for example, no one knows how to meld quantum theory and relativity theory when it comes to gravity), but there is no doubt that life has existed on Earth for some 4.5 billion years and that Homo sapiens is a twig on a marvelously branching evolutionary tree whose root is a common single-celled ancestor.

If people’s unfounded religious beliefs about creation stayed within their own deluded minds, that would be tolerable. It would be injurious to American society to have over half the population so misinformed about the nature of reality, but as long as this ignorance didn’t broadly spill over into our nation’s politics and culture, I’d say “everyone to his own opinions, even when they are ridiculous.”

But this same poll showed that Bush voters are much more gullible than Kerry voters. Only 47% of Kerry voters believe that God created humans in our present form, while 67% of Bush voters do. Similarly, 45% of Bush voters believe that creationism should be taught in schools instead of evolution, while only 24% of Kerry voters hold this extreme unscientific opinion.

This is scary. Two thirds of those who voted for Bush are woefully out of touch with some basic facts about reality. Many, if not most, of them also believe that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, an error of a mere five billion years or so. Dawkins pointed out that a majority of Bush supporters also are convinced that evidence for weapons of mass destruction has been found in Iraq.

Not surprising. If you take your religion on faith, then you will find it easy to take your politics on faith also. This is the secret of Bush’s success: he has tapped into a goldmine of American fundamentalist credulity.

If Karl Rove prays at all, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he regularly gets on his knees and says, “Dear God, thank you for rendering inoperative the critical thinking of those who have blind faith in you. This is what got us over the top on November 2. It enables us to pursue policies that would be rejected as out of touch with reality if, god forbid, a majority of the American electorate cared about what is real.”

The more a religion is based on unreality, the more dangerous it is—both for its followers and the unbelievers who are affected by what the followers do in the name of their fantasy God. My own prayer is that more and more people will come to accept that any religion which requires a rejection of physical reality isn’t worth following. Spirituality has nothing to do with matter; it has everything to do with spirit. There is no reason why scientific knowledge about the material universe should conflict with any truly spiritual practice.

Being open to the possibility of knowing things unseen shouldn't blind us to the truth of what is right before our eyes.

On a lighter note, I keep having an image of a cool t-shirt that says, “Reality is my religion.” Maybe I should stop fantasizing about it and make it, well, a reality. But, being a born-again procrastinator, I’ll probably never get around to it. Any entrepreneur who wants to take my idea and run with it, feel free. I’d even buy your first t-shirt (size: XL) and proudly wear it to unchurch.

Comments

[John]

In this world there is nothing so real like the love of Jesus Christ. And in your case, if you desire to become more wise than consider that wisdom begins with the fear of god.

[James]

Religion only exists because of the natural flaws in human nature. If we were all intelligent enough to realise what is right and wrong without the help of imaginary beings, the world would be a much better place. On the other hand, it is quite fun to laugh at religious nutjobs so i guess there is a plus side. thanks for an interesting read. peace.

[Jonny]

Religon is just a group of people who share the same view and feel there is a greater force driving their existance. In many cases, this greater force is known as 'God'.

Nowadays, the closest thing to gods are sceintist, phiosophers and alchemists.

[Chris]

These statistics that you came up with are unfounded and are not cited. As with many things, they need to be taken with a grain of salt. I think the statistics are untrustworthy.

For someone to admit that we are nothing without our supreme and perfect creator is not a bad or negative notion. It's very humbling. And it is wonderful to know that even if our family doesn't love us, or we don't even have a family to love us, that we are loved regardless by God. If someone wants to believe that the world was created by God and that it is only 6000 years old...let them...they really can't act on such a belief. (other than somehow making it mandatory for a school's curriculum). It would be unsafe if a religion believed it was okay to rape young children...and this of course would be a bad belief to hold and especially practice. No was is harmed if people believe that God created the world. Not a big deal. I think this article is really about someone who wanted the Democratic party to win and is looking for a reason the republicans won.

[June]

You can be grateful, open minded, intelligent, and have faith in God all at the same time. Most people innately know the difference between right and wrong and are drawn to God for whatever reason.

[tao]

June wrote: "and have faith in God".

-- "GOD", God", and more "god"... Gaaawwwwd, when will you God "drawn" religious types ever finally grow up?

[Jacob]

I agree, im 16, many people around me believe that their is a heaven or hell, why? i mean maybe if life was a movie or video game sure, but seriously when has something like that ever been seen before your eyes? when you die, your dead so live it up

[makaylamydog]

I pray for people that have no faith in God...

That is the point of faith, it is not suposed to be visible to the eye, but rather visibile to your soul and mind. I am upset that people feel the need to 'see to believe', because at the same time these non believers need proof of God, they listen to the liberal media of America and believe every single thing they hear. My high-school teacher use to tell me all the time- "consider the source". Individuals should be soul seeking on their own and become at peace with oneself before following the lead of satan. Think of this: What is the point of life if we are just living to die? It proves that our lives are glimpses of what is to come in the after life. Be prepared for a rude-awakening when you find out that living a life full of sins does not go well with God. Oh but nevermind, if you dont believe in a God then you might as well go and 'sin it up', or what some will say 'live it up'. If you want proof of life after death, just go ahead and take your life right now. If you stand for nothing (ignorance) you will fall for anything. In this case, Atheist that find no stance, usually fall into the hands of the devil.

[prajna paramita]

Makaylamydog, based on what you said, I'd have to say that you're a bit of an idiot.

"I am upset that people feel the need to 'see to believe', because at the same time these non believers need proof of God, they listen to the liberal media of America and believe every single thing they hear."

You don't know that. Fyi, I for one am highly critical of blind-faith, religion, and all the stupid condescending religious crap that people like you babble about. And I am NOT a liberal, and I DO NOT listen to the liberal media. Nor am I an atheist.

"My high-school teacher use to tell me all the time- "consider the source"."

I am considering the source (ie: you), and so thats what I mean about you being an idiot.

"Individuals should be soul seeking on their own and become at peace with oneself before following the lead of satan."

Telling other people what they SHOULD do, are you now? And if anyone was following satan, then you would surely fit the bill.

"our lives are glimpses of what is to come in the after life."

How would you know about any "after life"? Have you died, and are you dead yet? No, so you don;t know shit, but you sure sound like you are brain-dead.

"Be prepared for a rude-awakening when you find out that living a life full of sins does not go well with God."

And you know what? You can take all your self-righteous, condescending, and judgemental religious and sin bullshit, and shove it where the sun don't shine.

"If you want proof of life after death, just go ahead and take your life right now."

But if you are going to tell others to do that, then that's exactly what you should do considering you are really so sure about all that "faith" and "after life" and religious salvation crap that you believe in.

I myself have no reason to do such a thing because I have awareness and enormous gratitude and appreciation for the immense wonder and beauty of my life and existence. But obviously you don't, otherwise you would never even think to tell anyone to commit suicide, even in jest. Thus you are actually nothing but a phony religious hypocrite.

"If you stand for nothing (ignorance) you will fall for anything."

No one has "fallen" for anything except for you have fallen for religious fantasies and illusions. And standing for nothing is not ignorance. You are the ignorant one, because you believe in things which you cannot see or prove and which do not exist.

"In this case, Atheist that find no stance, usually fall into the hands of the devil."

There you go again with that absurd and ridiculous "devil" nonsense. The only devil there is, is your own foolish mind which deceives you into believing in ideas and things which are not real.

[tucson]

Makaylamydog,

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN.

--Monty Python

[JM]

By setting one's mind on God one concentrates on the perfect state. They see a perfect being that amazingly knows them and loves them. Their mind concentrates on a perfect future where existence will be wonderful. This can cause a perspective in which one problems can appear trivial and easily tackled for what are they compared to the most powerful intelligent being in the universe. I have experimented with this many times. I don't know what it is but this mindset invokes a powerful energy that "alchemically" changes a person. It draws an energy that is as real as water into a person. It can have incomprehensibly amazing results in changing an individual, and their life. I read this article because life is filled with ritual. The basic things like going to work, eating, food, all of which can have a deeper meaning than just getting by. In "Razor's Edge," my favorite Bill Murray movie, Larry was watching a guy do dishes in a lake in India. Larry asked him what he was doing and the man said that he was worshiping God. That's what I thought I thought this article was about and that's why I pushed through it as best I could. At the end of the book of Razor's Edge, Larry went to work. I have thought a lot about why a man so dedicated to the meaning of life would commit himself to what would seem to be the most mundane and tedious and anti spiritual of all we know. After a lifetime of being forced to work at some of the "worst" jobs I think I have an answer. But this is something that one must find for themselves.

[tucson]

"By setting one's mind on God one concentrates on the perfect state."

This presence already is a perfect "state". It is not a thing or object to be concentrated on.

"They see a perfect being that amazingly knows them and loves them."

The perfect being has no objects to love because it is not a subject that can have objects. Love just is. No cause, no beginning, no end.

"Their mind concentrates on a perfect future where existence will be wonderful."

There is no future. There is no past. This is it and IT isn't, but isn't IT wonderful?

"This can cause a perspective in which one problems can appear trivial and easily tackled for what are they compared to the most powerful intelligent being in the universe."

There is only one being in the entire universe and IT is nowhere to be found.

"I have experimented with this many times. I don't know what it is but this mindset invokes a powerful energy that "alchemically" changes a person. It draws an energy that is as real as water into a person."

Perhaps you have stumbled across what is always already present and that is no-thing..a mirror clear and bright.

"It can have incomprehensibly amazing results in changing an individual, and their life."

Life is incomprehensible, amazing change.

"The basic things like going to work, eating, food, all of which can have a deeper meaning than just getting by."

What could be deeper than that?

"Larry was watching a guy do dishes in a lake in India. Larry asked him what he was doing and the man said that he was worshiping God."

The guy was confused. God was washing the dishes and had nothing to worship.

"Larry went to work. I have thought a lot about why a man so dedicated to the meaning of life would commit himself to what would seem to be the most mundane and tedious and anti spiritual of all we know."

Anything is the meaning of life and he was doing it.

"After a lifetime of being forced to work at some of the "worst" jobs I think I have an answer. But this is something that one must find for themselves."

Then you have found that worst is best and no one finds anything. There is no "one" to find any "thing". The asker is the answer.

Congratulations. You knew it all along.

[the elephant]

bla bla bla bla bla ....
bla bla bla bla bla ....

[tucson]

Elephant, I think you are beginning to understand! Well said, but let me clarify for others via a play in which we are the actors:

E- Do you exist?”
T- Noumenally I feel that I am, but I cannot find myself. And the same goes for you and every living being.
E- Why is that?
T- For the same reason that keeps us from seeing our own face.
E- But you can see my face, and I can see yours.
T-Nonsense, perfect nonsense. We see nothing of the kind. What we see when we look at one another and at anything we can see at all, including our own feet, is just our object. And our object is part of ourself as its subject. Nobody can see us, because we have no objective existence whatsoever, and we cannot see anybody else because they have none. All of us can only see our objectifications, whatever they may be.
E- We do not exist as objects?
T- Of course not. No thing exists as an object. That is why there is no such thing as an entity. How could there be? Space and time are purely mental concepts. Where else could an entity extend itself?
E- Then no object is independent?
T- None is dependent either. ‘Others’ are yourself as whatever you ‘both’ are, and their apparent otherness as your objects is entirely a part of your phenomenal mind. Phenomenal existence or being, noumenally is not-being. Absolutely, it can be called as-it-isness.
E- I begin to understand!
T- Of course you do! ‘Is that all it is?’, as the T’ang dynasty monk said, laughing to his master when he suddenly understood, or ‘found himself awake’, as they put it.
E- No thing is..in its own right? Not even us?
T- No thing. Therefore there is no ‘us’, for ‘we’ are only one another’s objects as ‘us’.
E- Then in what way are we?
T- Just total objective absence, which is the presence of that-I-amness, which is what-I-amness, which is this-I-amness.
E- All of us are that?
T- All of us are not ‘that’, not ‘this’, not any concept at all. Nothing mysterious about it. Nothing holy. Just phenomenal notness, and the absence of the concept of that notness.
E- Then we have no positive being whatsoever?
T-Positivity and negativity are phenomenal concepts. We are not conceivable at all.
E- Then who lives?
T- You cannot find the doer of any deed, the thinker of any thought, the perceiver of any perception. The un-findable is all that we are , and the un-findable is the found. Everything is nothing. There is no self, other, desire, anger, hatred, love or victory, only the error of conceptual thought processes.

So now you all see "bla bla bla bla bla" says it very well.

[the elephant]

Dear Tucson:
Anyone finding herself/himself flirting with certain expressions of spirituality in these modern times—particularly with the phenomenon of the internet—faces the following dilemma: how do we recognize an educated fool repeating expressions such as "nothing is" from the same saying spoken with the confidence of the [whole universe]/reality--for instance, Niz saying "nothing is".

Is there such distinction between falsity (Poonja,Tony Parson,etc.) and authenticity (Niz, Spinoza, Hakuin, Dogen, etc.)?

Some Zen and Buddhist traditions have come up with the distinction essence/function regarding whatever [i.e. non-dual and/or diverse] reality.

How do you distinguish between "what is said" when it is the same: "nothing is" and "nothing is"? Because of an essential distinction in the "function". What is expressed may be the same but an abyss separates the two ... An analogy would that it is not so much about "what it is said" than it is about "how is it is said".

Of course, your mind--and my mind is already waiting for the reply :)--would like to raise the obvious: how could it be such distinction if any duality is denied--"No thing. Therefore there is no ‘us’, for ‘we’ are only one another’s objects as ‘us’." But those denials are simply deceiving narratives ... Why? or--which tantamount to the same--how can someone make a distinction regarding the dilemma mentioned earlier?

To put it bluntly: the “function” of your posts sucks! ;)

[tucson]

Elephant,

You're trying too hard.

"how do we recognize an educated fool repeating expressions such as "nothing is" from the same saying spoken with the confidence of the [whole universe]/reality--for instance, Niz saying "nothing is"."

--'We' don't.

"Is there such distinction between falsity (Poonja,Tony Parson,etc.) and authenticity (Niz, Spinoza, Hakuin, Dogen, etc.)?"

--Try having no distinction between falsity and authenticity.

"Some Zen and Buddhist traditions have come up with the distinction essence/function regarding whatever [i.e. non-dual and/or diverse] reality."

--Essence/function is the thing and it has no distinction.

"How do you distinguish between "what is said" when it is the same: "nothing is" and "nothing is"? Because of an essential distinction in the "function". What is expressed may be the same but an abyss separates the two ... An analogy would that it is not so much about "what it is said" than it is about "how is it is said"."

--It would be most accurate to say nothing at all.

Of course, your mind--and my mind is already waiting for the reply :)--would like to raise the obvious: how could it be such distinction if any duality is denied--"No thing. Therefore there is no ‘us’, for ‘we’ are only one another’s objects as ‘us’." But those denials are simply deceiving narratives ... Why? or--which tantamount to the same--how can someone make a distinction regarding the dilemma mentioned earlier?

--There is no dilemma. It's all a game. Lela. (Leela?) Layla? Or was that Eric Clapton's girlfriend?

"To put it bluntly: the “function” of your posts sucks! ;)"

--Sorry for your frustration. Again, don't try so hard. What is the use of looking outside, in thoughts and ideas? All you will see are objects. Turn around and look within.

E- Will I then see subject instead?

If you did you would be looking at an object. An object is such in whatever direction you look.

E- Will I not see myself?

You cannot see what is not there.

E- What then will I see?

Perhaps you may see the absence of yourself, which is what is looking. It has been called the 'void'.

;)

[the elephant]

Again the same bla bla bla ...

First:
You're trying too hard.

Then (or before in a previous post):
E- Will I not see myself?
You cannot see what is not there.

Your disregard for contradictions when it suites you—and only then—is interesting ... Who—who does not exist btw—is trying too hard? And is the characterization “trying too hard” an easy and meaningless retort? After all, how is this “too hard” harder than your own lengthy posts to others? In terms of wasted time and word count I am still way behind you … Anyone could say that you are trying too hard with your insipid dialogues … meaningless and convenient as I said …

Why do you project on me—who does not exist btw—frustrations? (I remember you and Tao scolding other posters for doing exactly this kind of projections and attributions). I am not frustrated but simply amused by your posts—a detached wonder similar to that originating from watching the (bad) auditions at the beginning of each season of American Idol.

P.S. In general, humor as defense mechanism is usually a transparent process and often seen through easily …

[tucson]

"Your disregard for contradictions when it suites you—and only then—is interesting ... Who—who does not exist btw—is trying too hard?"

You. Of course you ARE, but not as any sort of 'thing'. Does that help?

What I say may seem contradictory in the relative framework of language until what I am talking about is seen intuitively. What other means of communication would you suggest I utilize in this forum than words? The words are not the insight/outsight. It is an attempt to create words that point to what is implied by them.

The antagonism I get from you is based on your annoyance with what you perceive as my posturing as some sort of authority when you think I actually don't know shit. That gets under your skin. You think I am simply parroting what has been said by sages, that I am actually an empty suit as evidenced by my contradictions. Did sages not ever appear to contradict themselves?

"Why do you project on me—who does not exist btw—frustrations?"

The tone of your posts reflects what you feel, an anger born of the frustration that you can't "get" what is being discussed and projecting the fault of that on what you think is my phoney posturing.

"(I remember you and Tao scolding other posters for doing exactly this kind of projections and attributions)"

Take the words "you and" out of the above sentence and you would be correct. That has not been an issue for me here, until now.

"I am not frustrated but simply amused by your posts—a detached wonder similar to that originating from watching the (bad) auditions at the beginning of each season of American Idol."

The word "frustrated" seems to have hit home, and you do seem very Simon Cowell-like in your snide, snotty, arrogant way of self expression.

"P.S. In general, humor as defense mechanism is usually a transparent process and often seen through easily …"

You're so rigid, you can't enjoy it from your haughty intellectual viewpoint. A condescending smirk is probably your most uproarious expression of humor.

Every time you see an object you are seeing the subject of that object in its objective manifestation. Every object is a mirror which reflects what is looking. So, really you are the phoney poseur and I am the frustrated, haughty intellectual!

[Bravo !]

Tucson wins hands down. No question about it.

The Elephant's monstrous ego is simply too big for his puny spiritual britches.

Or put another way - a very "snide, snotty, arrogant rigid, haughty intellectual viewpoint" indeed.

And worse, the Elephant condiders himself THE spokesman and interpreter for Nisargadatta... of all people! LOL!

[the elephant]

Dear Tucson:
Thank you for a dubious psycho-pop analysis ("seems to have hit home") with a hint of naive spirituality ("Every object is a mirror which reflects what is looking.").

I made two remarks (“bla bla bla” and “the function of … sucks”) on the nature and function of some of your recent posts--which remarks it is true have one inevitable, necessary and indirect implication regarding some aspects of your person. You may not buy a bit regarding what I wrote about essence/function—that is fine. But somehow (identification? What do I know) my remarks and answers eventually led to a reply that involved several particular and specific attacks on my psychological motivations and states--mostly based on the thin air of your imagination. Why do you continue using—after “trying too hard”--cheap and easy rhetorical generalizations to make or develop your points? For instance, the usual "seems to have hit home" can be said about most personally-oriented propositions in an exchange between people. However, a dialogue never goes very far when person A speculates on something personal about person B only to retort to a reply from person B on--possibly inappropriate--personal remarks by “you replied to the personal comment I made so it seems that it must have hit home” … and so there must be something valid about the personal comment that was initially made. We can easily imagine an exchange where person A makes an outrageous and false personal comment on person B and makes sure to reply by “I have hit home” to any sensible corrections coming from person B. “I have hit home” does not mean much in the current context because it can only be verified in theory—intelligence and self-deception are always key issues—by me. It is mostly a cheap, easy, useless—except for the user’s benefits—rhetorical stratagem—like the characterization “trying too hard”.

For instance, I could make the same observation/inference about how you went to great speculative lengths to characterize my psyche notwithstanding the perilous nature of the exercise suggests that you have been “ticked off” and thus it establishes the validity of a necessary implication from my original claim on the nature of your recent posts, i.e. that you may be a well-intentioned but self-deceived phoney with respect to some of the beliefs you have shared with us on Brian’s blog. I could even speculate further and affirm that it seems that I must have hit home since someone—probably not a first time reader/poster of this blog/someone who has used many pseudonyms in the past/Bravo rhymes with …—felt compelled to jump in to support you. But that would be too easy, not very convincing and most importantly not very useful.

I would like to make the observation that your latest reply presents inferences that lead to narratives that are pretty convenient towards yourself and paint me as a seemingly pathetic individual. A useful rule of thumb is that such “all the way in one direction” account biased towards one's self-interests are rarely useful and accurate--but again we have to be careful with rule of thumbs. Unfortunately for you AND ME, you are in no position to know if your suppositions are accurate. In theory I am in a better position to evaluate the validity of your claims since they are about my motivations and inner life. I would like to suggest to you that the rule of thumb does indeed apply here.

No doubt, you came up with a coherent narrative. But is it sufficient? Here is an instance of coherent—perfectly plausible story but one among many—but self-serving inference that turned out to be a bit off

From Critics Do. Critics Don't. A Response to Ken Wilber by Christian de Quincey
“I hadn’t planned on responding to Ken Wilber’s lengthy reply, "Do Critics Misrepresent My Position," to my paper, “The Promise of Integralism,” in the Journal of Consciousness Studies (Vol. 7 No. 11/12 [2000]), but a recent remark by a mutual colleague made me think twice: “Of course, you got Wilber wrong,” he said matter-of-factly. On further probing, I discovered that he and other members of a Wilber-dialogue group had concluded that my critique must have been “factually wrong” because I had not responded to Wilber’s very strong claim that I had “misrepresented” him and his ideas. My silence was interpreted as an acknowledgement of Wilber’s slam-dunk retort. And, he said, Wilber had commented something to the effect: “There. That’s the end of that,” meaning he believed he had put me in my place.
Actually, my silence indicated nothing of the sort. I didn’t respond before now for two reasons: One, because I was just too busy with other projects, such as fine-tuning my forthcoming book Radical Nature, various teaching commitments, my full-time job as managing editor for IONS Review, and a couple of papers and articles I had been commissioned to write for other journals. Second, I saw no particular merit in continuing a de Quincey-Wilber ping-pong match…”

Am I the sad individual that you describe? I don't see how your power of abstraction can know all that from reading my recent posts; but somehow you seem compel to infer and fill in what is missing in order achieve just that. Moreover, a short while ago we had a demonstration that your powers of inference and induction were fallible. I imagine that would lead some people to be cautious and more humble...

You are welcome to entertain any narratives about me. The purpose of my original posts was not to foster this kind of imaginational exercises and deceptions that your latest posts have shown. For this reason, and the fact that there is nothing I can write that can communicate the validity of my original claim and that I personally consider as being useless exploring in length each others’ psyches on speculative grounds, this post will probably be my last regarding this particular exchange. Thank you for the exchange.

[tucson]

Hello the Elephant,

I read your last comments and gave various points some thought to which I was going to respond, but on second thought I think it's best not to further open the lid on this "can of worms" which would be perpetuated by parsing this out further. I doubt either of us will benefit from this.

"..narratives that are pretty convenient towards yourself and paint me as a seemingly pathetic individual."

"Am I the sad individual that you describe?"

I regret that these exchanges have resulted in such issues even being raised. Your final paragraph says it best:

"The purpose of my original posts was not to foster this kind of imaginational exercises and deceptions that your latest posts have shown. For this reason, and the fact that there is nothing I can write that can communicate the validity of my original claim and that I personally consider as being useless exploring in length each others’ psyches on speculative grounds, this post will probably be my last regarding this particular exchange. Thank you for the exchange."

Same here.

[Ben Nelson]

God to me is all, and all can't be fake, because if we are aware of it, it is real. We don't fully know how, but our construction from seed to adult has reacted with reality since seed. Up until this point, or physical body, that is based on our genetics and species - meaning, since we are humans, we interact with reality in a generically human manor. This isn't a very clear argument, but it's good to be aware of where thought, action, interaction with the environment and other humans most apparently could come from.

Humans want life; all things we do, ALL, good and bad, are attempts to ward off problems that hurt. Murderers for example, kill to feel good - if they wanted pain, they would slide down a razor into a pool of alcohol.

I feel that religion are groups of people that generally can't be perfect at emulating a simple explanation of the principles of man's current best knowledge.

An example of a skeleton of Christianity might be as follows:

God = all
Satan = laziness
Praying = discipline to give up less valuable thoughts for contemplated new input from senses (reality)
Jesus = example that forgiveness in a group of people can dissolves revenge from victims

The word love, poses a huge problem. God's love is different than christian love, unless that god is a chistian god. True love, is not from the heart. True love is from the soul. True love is unexplainable and impossible to achieve even in 70 years of church. True love is life prevented from suffering by anything that feels the corresponding problem. Mentally challenged people are sometimes said to be sweet and loving individuals. God is too. But God parted the red sea. God provided rain. God didn't do these things out of hate. God didn't do those things for no reason. God loves. If we use Christianity, and other semi-blind life philosophies, we will die faster then slower. If we stay more fully aware of reality, we might die tomorrow - but more than likely not than surely.

Anyway, my point is that all things need to be accounted for when we see things that are new - reality is not to be trifled with, it'll kill you. This post is not the other half of an argument, it's my guess based on what I've seen in my life, that reality is serious, and it doesn't lie. Don't get me wrong, the United States of America of proof that reality can be very giving. But please please please don't discount reality just because of it is overly involved with detail. Reality from a christian standpoint might try to explain to people how easy things are. This means that humans are stupid, and that we're half-assing again. If there wasn't a serious amount of things to learn about everything man is aware of, there'd be no eternal god, but there would be a lot of gods (us). God is amazing because He is always successful. It's sad that so many religions are too scared to change as a whole because most religions are units that still fear God as far as the doctrine of the church combined with the education of the members. Without recognition of scientific information, especially from those who might disagree with Adam and Eve, we fear Satan. Satan is lazy - do you want to serve the one who appreciates nothing? It seems impossible to know a lot about the world, but not learning, is to use the ones who've learned. Consciences don't lie. Atheists carry the spirit of the Lord, and details are more appreciated by our children than Christmas, Easter and church.

It's time to consider some new possibilities.

[Roger]

Ben Nelson,

Thanks for your above comment.

You mentioned Satan, and laziness. Could you write a comment that gives further details regarding Satan? I have no information. Your knowledge of Satan, especially what Satan looks like, would be a fascinating read.

In addition, you mentioned, "atheist carry the spirit of the lord." I'm trying to gather information regarding Atheism. Could you write a comment that gives further information regarding atheist knowledge of the "spirit" of the lord?
This would possibly indicate a belief system that atheist use in a possible religion of Atheism. Again, I would appreciate further (in your words)information.

I'm not for or against Satan or Atheism, I'm just lacking in information.

Thanks again for any help you can bring my way.
Best wishes,
Roger

[tom]

i totally believe you. i mean that most of all the things like war and ignorance are surrounded by christianity. besides if god loves all then he loves the rapist, murderers, Hitler and Stalin wannabe's. to we are an image of him. that is utmost disturbing we might as well worship our selves. most christians are clos-minded and criticize otjers beliefs by saying"only our religion is right and if you do not follow our god you will burn in eternal hellfire" not very loving merciful at all. besides everything has matter even light has matter so your god is of absolute nothingness. so if he is made of nothing contain nothing then how can he care, think, move, and be every where without be made of anything. please do not say something ignorant like"because its god" "he just is" because that is just ridiculous and mind i say mental so how can so called miracles be made out of nothingness.