We know (as much as we can know anything, and always allowing for the unverifiable notion that nothing but consciousness exists) that the universe exists, and that we appear to be a part of it. We might assume that it was created for us by God, or we might assume that the universe in some guise always existed. This is not knowable for now, or perhaps ever, but that is unimportant.

What we can know for certain is this: if the universe was created for us, and we created to be in the universe, then both we and the universe are of value to the creator for whatever (unknowable) reason. Otherwise, if the universe came into existence on its own, or always existed, and we evolved along with it, then the universe and its contents are of critical importance to us. Either way, our physical environment and our social environment (as cooperative creatures) are absolutely necessary to our survival.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

There is another alternative to this way of thinking, however, which is that we are responsible for everything we perceive and think is real. Hence the world is a projection of a consciousness that thinks it is separate from the Whole. Hence, the realm of bodies and everything involved in that concepts (sin, suffering, death, illness, guilt, etc.) is a grand fantasy which is ultimately not "real." In this case, our survival as limited physical beings is secondary to the realization that we are "doing this to ourselves" and that the cause, which is in our mind (not brain), can be changed.

So this last article, at least for me, makes no sense, because it suggests that the physical world is the only reality and must be preserved, rather than transcended.

I would like to see, in a way that I can understand, a treatise on how consciousness alone arises -- not supported by anything, not because of anything, not part of anything because there is nothing -- only to create the illusion of something because .... well I'm not sure I know what the because might be.

Because that is what you are suggesting. In everything that is know to us, there is absolutely not one single shred of evidence to suggest that consciousness exists solo. Yet you want to believe that to be the case, and then suppose further that this self-existing consciousness needs to create the perfect illusion of a reality that it is not part of. Where do such notions arise?

Is human life so unbearably awful? Is that why so many people spend vast amounts of energy trying to imagine ways for it to be something else, even though there's simply nothing -- other than wanting it to be so -- to suggest that it might be?

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Dear Rev Kelly,
Would you be willing to stop advertising your faith and prosletizing?
Would you be willing to pay property taxes on your Church property?
Would you be willing to pay sales tax on Church purchases?
Would you be willing to surrender the income tax exemption that chuch people get for contributing to support their church?
Would you be willing to stop publicly supported religious jobs such as military chaplains?
Would you be willing to stop accepting money from the government for faith based initiatives?
Would you be willing to have people call you Ms, Miss, or Mrs Kelly, rather than Rev Kelly?

Religion gets special treatment from government. Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers, do not. If religion is to really be a personal matter, religion needs to give up its perks. I am even pissed when a policeman holds up traffic on Sunday so that the Christians can empty their church parking lot. The town doesn't send a policeman to block traffic when I exit my driveway. I pay property taxes and the church doesn't, so I pay for the policeman but they get the service.

stuart shepherd

Dear Rev Kelly,
Would you be willing to stop advertising your faith and prosletizing?

I don't now. I have a wedding business that honors all faiths.

Would you be willing to pay property taxes on your Church property?

I don't have a church, and I pay property taxes, so your point would be?
Would you be willing to pay sales tax on Church purchases?

I pay sales tax just like everyone else. I get to claim the money that I spend on my wedding business against the profits just like every other business in the US, not as a church.

Would you be willing to surrender the income tax exemption that chuch people get for contributing to support their church?

I don't get donations, but money for services rendered, just like every other business in the US.

Would you be willing to stop publicly supported religious jobs such as military chaplains?

I have issues with government place supporting religious jobs, I firmly believe in sepperation of church and state.

Would you be willing to stop accepting money from the government for faith based initiatives?

Don't get any now.

Would you be willing to have people call you Ms, Miss, or Mrs Kelly, rather than Rev Kelly?

I use the Rev as part of my user name online, and I sign marriage certificates, but when people address me, they call me simply Kelly.

Religion gets special treatment from government. Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers, do not. If religion is to really be a personal matter, religion needs to give up its perks. I am even pissed when a policeman holds up traffic on Sunday so that the Christians can empty their church parking lot. The town doesn't send a policeman to block traffic when I exit my driveway. I pay property taxes and the church doesn't, so I pay for the policeman but they get the service.

I see your frustration, but it is not my doing.

I also have the title of Rev. because I am in interfaith minister. This forum is my church so to speak. I pay a lot of money to keep it going and it is free to all. You haven't had to pay cent to come here for the last several months and tell us how much you hate Christianity and churches. There are some Revs. out there who sacrifice a lot to be of service to other people.

I hope at some point you will be able to add something positive to this forum. That is also free.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Dear Evangelical,

Who said the "religious wars" have ever stopped?

You have very refined opinions about your view of your world. Since entering this forum I've always respected and valued your posts. You obviously have a passion for your beliefs and a tolerance of other's beliefs.

However, your world is your perception of what works for you. One would hope that most others would respect that and accept you for who you are; obviously a very intelligent, well read, articulate communicator with a wide variety of interests and opinions most of which many can benefit from. Thank you for that. Keep it up, please.

You might consider that other's views are just as meaningful to them as your's is for you. You've said on many occasions that a persons way of thinking is personal so long as its not imposed upon others. No one can argue with that. That's the point, as long as we hold our beliefs as our own, there needs to be no argument. Accepting each other as we are doesn't lead to expecting one to provide proof for what they believe. That's being judgmental. Most theists (I can't speak for athiests any more than you a
can for theists), in my opinion, rely on faith alone for the support they seek from their interpretation of God. It would seem, if only by conjecture, that the lack of faith, in anything, would put one on a path with no answers to the questions most important to them. Faith, (not theology), for those who include the practice it in their outlook on life and/or belief system have something to "fall back on" when all else seems to fail. It's not a weakness, it's an assurance of things unseen. This too is the "good news" of being human.

__________________
Only Love Prevails,
Don

Sorry if I picked on you. I was just using you as a symbol of all the injustice perpetrated on nonChristians by the Church-State conspiracy.

stuart shepherd

There's nothing wrong with seeking answers, but from the rationalist's point of view this "faith" is also a good reason to stop looking for answers. Remember the story in a book by Stephen Hawking, in which a bigname scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. "The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked, "And what is the turtle standing on?" To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down."

The point of this (likely apocryphal) story is that her epistemology had no way to deal with the question of an endless succession of turtles, and so she slyly introduced a new term "all the way down," or in other words "bottom." This "bottom" is analagous to God. It is the signal to stop questioning here. It is the "answer by definition" rather than an answer by epistemological diligence.

And yet, cosmologists, physicists, sociobiologists continue to question, and the latter in particular are learning a great deal (at long last) about human nature (see Edward O. Wilson's On Human Nature). And one of the things that they are learning is that while God belief may be a natural (emergent) phenomenon, it is not "the answer" and it may, in the end, be of limited or negative value.

And that's the problem, I think. You suggested yourself that people are looking for "answers to the questions most important to them." But I ask, do they just want answers, or do they want right answers? And again, we can go around and around with definitions, and you may well (and possibly correctly!) suggest that the "right answer" is the answer that's "right for them." To the mind that inquires as mine does, however, that's not enough. I want a "right answer" that also bears as much relationship to the truth of our existence as possible. If scientific or other knowledge makes a faith-based answer unlikely, then I think that we must continue looking.

Because living with "right answers" that are also not true means, to me, that we are not being all that we can be. Living a lie falls short of living well, I think.

And by the way, this is clearly demonstrated in the continual and wearying efforts by Christian fundamentalists to have some form of creation story taught in science classes alongside (and trust me, eventually instead of) evolution. The plain and undeniable fact is that this would inevitably lead to a "dumbing-down" of American science knowledge, and that cannot bode well in a world that will depend increasingly on the best science knowledge possible.
I do not question the need for "faith" in many senses. Not even an atheist could survive in a world in which he had faith in nothing. I have great faith in the natural laws that make the world work. I have unbounded faith in the potential (not yet actualized) of mankind, and I have seen it actualized in a few so far. I have faith in our democratic systems, although sometimes they make me angry. I have faith that most people do not wish me harm, meaning that I don't need to go around armed to the teeth every day.

Unfortunately, for far too many people (and I do not mean all people), faith in "things unseen" can be all too easily manipulated by the unscrupulous. And what is a million times worse, it can be turned to evil by the very, very scrupulous and well-meaning. That is is the reason you will constantly see references (by atheists like myself, I grant) to some of the horrors that have resulted from religious practice (as opposed to individual faith). The burnings of witches and heretics, the stonings and wallings of homosexuals, the "honour" killings of Muslim girls, and on and on. These things are as often as not done with the very best of intentions, but they are intentions based on what cannot be known -- your "faith in things unseen." And what cannot be know must not be used as the basis of taking action in the world against others.

And that is as short as I can be to help you understand my antipathy towards religion.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I find this insulting; I am not a symbol nor Christian. You are only a victim if you allow others to make you feel like a victim. And I don't think that there is a Church-State conspiracy either.