“Religion” Responding to 6666’s objection to the definition of Atheism, “There is no middle ground”

Back up!
There is no middle ground.
Please don't group atheists based on your definition. We are not as black and white as you seem to imply. I think you may need to talk to quite a few more atheists to get a better feel for us than you obviously have.

Being an atheist nearly all my 39 years, I don't fit that close-minded view at all.

Submitted by ang6666

Reply to ang6666
You are indeed an atheist defending against a perceived encroachment on your territory. You seem also to be a religious atheist rather than a secular atheist. That’s good. It suggests you ask questions and seek answers. A secular anything tends to have adopted a mindset, but does not take it too seriously and certainly does not let it interfere with his life; it is in a sense a heathen mindset, i.e. what is is. It’s bad in the sense that people who are religious anything have an agenda and tend to dismiss those who do not share that agenda as uninformed, misinformed, deliberately dense, and forever lost to any rational discussion.

I am flattered that you found my article interesting enough to read far enough to be insulted by it. I did not intend, however, to judge heathens, pagans, or atheists. In fact, I did not intend to talk about actual people who identify themselves as heathen, pagan or atheist at all. The main point of my article was that we are all heathens, pagans and atheists differing only in the degree each of these religions is represented in the mix.

Another point I attempted to make was that even though religion is a rational response to the irrational (emotions [instincts]), religion is itself totally irrational (emotional [instinctive]). A rational response to our environment is the new boy on the block as opposed to our irrational (emotional [instinctive, intuitive] responses, and it is only one of the many survival devices used in our determination to stay alive. The key point here is “our determination to stay alive.”

I am an evolutionist. I believe that long before we became rational, our survival skills (the instincts developed in our successful attempts to continue living) were becoming an intrinsic part of us. Much as embryonic stem cells become different organs when the appropriate stimulus is applied, so too do our survival skills (emotion [instincts]) develop when the appropriate stimulus is applied.

I chose to lump these emotions (instincts) into three basic categories because three seems so important to many religious groups. I assume it is so important to them because family is represented as three numerologically. I chose the names (heathen, pagan, and atheist) because religious groups use these terms to disparage those who do not share their perspective. I also used these three terms to represent the religious equivalent of our three basic survival techniques, the techniques of the hunted, the hunter and the herd (from the perspective of the hunted) or from the perspective of the hunter (the prey, the predator and the pack), to give structure to what I hope will be a thoughtful and scientific evaluation of religious groups.

The final point I attempted to make is that the defense of ones religious perspective is not a rational response, though reason may be one of our survival tools used in its defense. It is irrational. It is emotional. It is instinctive. It is a fight for our very survival. We should not, therefore, take our religious differences too lightly. We must understand that the religious disagreement we have with our neighbor is far more than a disagreement, and we must take great care not to corner those with whom we disagree. This is a serious mistake I believe religious fundamentalists are making today.

Although atheism can be as irrational as any other religion, I believe God has a special affection for those who do not believe in Him. Like any father He encourages His progeny to step forth on their own. An atheist does not need God. He has family, friends, community and confidence. I suspect that God would have it no other way.

"Creation" Responds to "Artificial Christmas Tree" vs. "Real Christmas Tree"

Artificial Christmas trees vs Real Christmas Trees
A simple list of why Artificial Christmas Trees are better than real Christmas trees. Artificial Christmas trees last longer than real trees. Artificial Christmas trees are safer than real trees because they are not a fire hazard. Studies show that plastic artificial Christmas trees are thrown out after ten years. There is no hassle in buying artificial Christmas trees because they are found in many shops around Christmas. Artificial Christmas trees can be decorated with tinsel or foliage colored tinsel. Artificial Christmas trees are generally inexpensive; because they are made out of cheap inexpensive materials whereas many cheaper live trees are of poor quality, as well as they deteriorate quickly. Shop around to find a tree that you like within your price limit! Artificial Christmas trees don't litter the floor with pine needles like real trees do. Artificial Christmas trees don't bother you if you don't like the smell of pine or have allergies. If you happen to like the smell of pine you can buy a special pine spray for your artificial Christmas trees. Artificial Christmas trees can't rot like real trees can. Artificial Christmas trees are easy to assemble and easy to store away. Artificial Christmas trees don't weigh much.
Submitted by Chris


Reply to Artificial
Thank you for your response to my article, Artificial. At first I assumed you had simply tacked on an advertisement to all the blogs at PBA, so I searched. I only scanned the most obvious, of course. There are far too many to scan all, but I found this reply on none I looked at. I am, therefore, going to assume that it is a genuine reply and that you did indeed read my article and took it seriously enough to reply.

At the risk of appearing foolish and of making too much of too little, I must say it is the most insightful response I’ve had to any of my articles. The title alone is a devastating thrust at the very heart my assumptions; I paraphrase: “What Is Pretend vs What Is Real” or perhaps “Whatever God Has Done, We Can Do Better.” This is irony at its best.

Your first point seems to be that fantasy insulates us against the harsh realities of our life. We can think pleasant thoughts as we are consumed. This has long been the argument of those who advocate rational thought over irrational (intuitive) responses to stimuli. The point is well taken. We can and should be rational enough to protect ourselves against what we cannot control, and if we can we should attempt to control what is at the moment beyond our control in order to protect ourselves in the future. I would argue further that we are driven to control what we cannot at the moment control by our determination to dominate. However, it is tempting to revere rational thought to our detriment by treating our irrational nature with contempt. Fantasy is an important part of our life. It is, I believe, the foundation of our humanity.

Your second point seems to be that fantasy is forever, whereas the world around us changes and we change also. There is, therefore, the hazard of falling into fantasy, of having it overshadow reality to the extent that we function ineffectively in society and even against our own wellbeing. We remain a child in an adult world, unable to care for ourselves and perhaps putting those around us at risk. I would argue that the opposite is also true; that we can become lost in our rationality to the extent that we act ultimately to our own disadvantage though at the moment we seem only to be sacrificing those around us to our benefit.

Your third point seems to be that fantasy is easy and costs us very little or nothing at all, but reality comes at a cost. It demands attention and it demands sacrifice. In the real world, you must be aware of what is around you or you do not survive. In the real world, you must do something to get something. At the very least, you must sacrifice time to gain sustenance. You must exercise to remain healthy. You must sacrifice some of your independence to become and remain part of a group. I would argue that in a rational society that treats the irrational (intuition) with contempt fantasy can be costly indeed.

Your fourth point seems to be that reality is messy and can cause you pain, but fantasy is well ordered and painless. This is not necessarily true. Fantasy can too easily get out of control; it can become malevolent. Ghosts and goblins are fantasy, but when we become lost in our fantasy they can cause us great harm. They can even control our behavior; looking under our bed at night, leaving on a night light so we can sleep more secure, pulling the covers over our head, whistling in the dark. The list is endless and I have not even mentioned the Satan many religious people give so much power. I would, however, argue that reality without fantasy could be much messier and more painful than it seems to be in our perception of it. I would point out that hope is not a scientific principle. For the purely rational, hope is an expression of ignorance.

Your last point seems to be similar to your second. Fantasy does not die, we do. A particular fantasy may fade away, but is quickly replaced by another. We create the fantasy and even the fantasy that is us, but the reality of us is terminal. Our primal purpose, in the view of the evolutionist (which I am) is to stay alive. All our instincts, including our rational ability, work towards that end. If that were the extent of our determination, should we attain the ability to live for several centuries, millennia, forever, our lives would become meaningless. However, this instinctive need to stay alive, when no longer needed every moment of our lives becomes a determination to dominate. There will always be that which cannot be controlled, so there will always be meaning to our lives; but what about now? We do not live long and all indications are that when we die, we cease to be. That is reality. Our very essence, our primal purpose to stay alive, rebels at such a thought and projects rightly or wrongly the fantasy that there is life beyond death; we will not cease to be.

In a sense, Artificial, you have used mythological language to more effectively state your position. There are only two ways to talk honestly about God. One is to talk about yourself, since God is a relationship not a rational discovery. The other is through mythological language, that which is not true, but contains truth. Your reply was true until it was attached to my article. At that point, since it had no point in relationship to my article, it became not true (nonsense) unless read mythologically as containing truth. Thank you for your intuitive understanding of my article. If I have misunderstood or misrepresented you in any way, I look forward to your response.

“Religion” Responding to Josia’s invitation to discover Kabbalah

Want an Intro? (To God)
Hey Paul - fabulous writing by the way - you bring up a lot of great points but don't seem to have a real solution! ...it's not a matter of ignorance - you just don't have the full picture yet - God/the force that created us (or whatever you want to call it) wants you to be exactly like Him. You can read more about that on my blog: http://www.kabbalahforwomen.com/
Submitted by Josia

Reply to Josia
I think I may owe you an apology. By using mythological language to express my relationship with God I did not mean to imply that I am a mystic. I see myself as a realist trying to explain how an atheist (which I am; I do not believe God exists) can be a person of faith (which I am; in fact, it’s the only relationship I have with God).

I am an evolutionist. Being an evolutionist has made it possible for me to resolve this conflict. Let me share with you the direction of my thinking. Long before we were rational creatures, perhaps even long before we were complex enough to be called creatures, an awareness of that which we cannot control must surely have begun to seep into our behavior patterns. As those of us more capable of avoiding that which we could not control survived long enough to propagate and so pass on our ability to avoid what we could not control, an awareness, a consciousness, of that which we cannot control became part of our gene pattern, and as we became social creatures became part of our social development, reinforced by the behavior of those around us while we were too young to defend ourselves.

To the scavenger just about everything is God (that which cannot be controlled). As the scavenger gains more control over his environment, becomes a predator and/or part of a herd/pack, he begins to realize that what could not be controlled yesterday can be controlled today, at least to some extent, so perhaps what cannot be controlled today may be controlled tomorrow. And so he experiments. Assuming everything that is not him is like him, alive, he tries to control both what is animate and what is inanimate the way he controls members of his group, by giving gifts and offering affection.

Our primary passion is to continue to live. This determination to stay alive down through the ages has produced us, and it still drives us. When there is no threat, however, when there is no reason for a fight or flight response, this instinct for survival becomes a determination to dominate. Some of us try to dominate by learning more about our surroundings, by inventing new ways to manipulate our surroundings, etc. Others seek to dominate by coercion and/or deceit. Still others try to dominate by nihilistic activity, tearing things down, killing and torturing.

God is what cannot be controlled. Our awareness that there is that which we cannot control is the beginning of our apprehension of God. God is an apprehension, not a comprehension. We intuit God. Our very nature (our instincts, our emotions) confronts God. Each of our successes in controlling today what we could not control yesterday leads us to believe that God can be domesticated, but our instinct (intuition, emotions) tells us that this cannot be.

The role of religion has been to domesticate God. If incantations seem to work, then they become part of our religion. If icons or idols seem to work, then they become part of our religion. We worship what seems to work. Then we discovered the scientific method. We were suddenly able to dominate what surrounds us in ways beyond our wildest dreams and more and more there seems to be no end to what we can control.

Where does that leave religion? Science has accomplished what religion had only hoped to accomplish. Religion has a choice, adapt to scientific discovery or assert control over God and use Him as a weapon. Religion has chosen the latter. That leaves science with a choice, adapt scientific discovery to religious concepts or discredit religion. Science has chosen the latter.

I would suggest that both religion and science recognize that God is that which cannot be controlled. No matter how many things we ultimately control, God will not be one of them. I would further suggest that both science and religion recognize that a relationship with God is totally irrational (instinctive, emotional, intuitive). That accomplishes two things. First, God will cease to be a belief. To profess to believe something is to express doubt. Doubt is part of the definition of belief. A relationship with God is not subject to question. It is an expression of faith. What one believes about God is always subject to question. This is healthy and potentially productive and should be a continuing sharing of opinion, metaphysical speculation and hearsay evidence. Second, recognition of God as that which cannot be controlled opens the discussion to those of all faiths and to atheists and to that in which atheists have faith.

A word of caution might be in order here. That which cannot be controlled must not be confused with that which we cannot control. People of faith tend to be protective of that which we cannot control in the mistaken assumption that it has something to do with challenging God. This can lead to religious nihilism, a recurring problem in religious communities. Watching the world take control today of what it did not control yesterday, they seek to protect god from further intrusions into what we could not and therefore should not control (in the limited interpretation of God as that which we cannot control) and look forward to a time of retribution when God will finally destroy all these interlopers into His territory and will take the faithful to a better place where they will no longer have a need for the very thing that makes them beloved of God, the determination to stay alive.

People of science often become arrogant in thinking there is nothing we cannot ultimately control. I would remind them that without God (that which cannot be controlled) we will no longer have a purpose, a driving force. If we should gain control of everything, we will lose that which fuels our curiosity, our determination. We will lose our determination to continue living. That will not happen. That is God’s promise to us.

I am not really looking for a solution, Josia. I just want to share the fact that although technically I am an atheist, I am a person of faith. If there are those who are theologically challenged, yet committed to their faith, I would encourage them to return to their religious group, but feel free to approach God on their own terms and allow others to relate to God as they see fit. I would also like to open the religious community to atheists either as a community of atheists or as an atheist sharing in the totally irrational community of believers.

I do not believe God exists, and I have difficulty in thinking of God as a force. I believe that God created existence and is beyond existence or even the concept of a force. I have a relationship with God, but such a relationship does not prove or even suggest that God exists. It’s a relationship. Relationships do not exist in the same way as objects we experience through our senses. It is a matter of the mind.

I do not want to be exactly like God, any more than I want to be exactly like my earthly father. I am who I am and I will become who I will become. I value my relationship with God mostly for the continuing companionship and support no matter what I do or say. There is also guidance when I ask for it, but it is hard to tell if that is actual, cultural or instinctive.

Concerning my ignorance which I freely admit, that very ignorance suggests I do not have the full picture. I would go even further and suggest that I do not have a full picture of anything at all. I am, however, trying to figure out why people do what people do, where God is involved or is not involved in what people do, or even how God got involved in what people do in the first place. His involvement seems to be universal, so there must be something inherent in human beings that draws us towards God.

I am touched that you have invited me, a male and a gentile, to your website for women who wish to share in the study of kabbalah. I went to your website, but it is confusing to me. Perhaps you could explain exactly what the kabala is supposed to do. Again, thank you for responding to my article. I hope I have not disappointed you. I look forward to reading your response.

Welcome
Paul! Sorry I just noticed this reply! The more I read what you write the more I can see that kabbalah is exactly for someone like you - kabbalah is a science that explains exactly what we're doing here, what the goal is, and how to get there as quickly as possible. All the stuff you're writing about is pure philosophy - just ramblings of your brain if you know what I mean. If you check out some of the links on my site to authentic kabbalah material you will reach a point where you can explain and prove anything *to yourself* - all this is internal work. My best friend was exactly like you a few years back - after I started studying she would continue with all this blah blah stuff about miracles and healing etc. and I would just hold the phone away from my ear. It took a year but she finally figured out that all that stuff was total bull - and that the only real thing in this world - is kabbalah - she was so afraid of discovering that - or discovering the opposite - that she wouldn't let me talk about it for an entire year! Kabbalah nowadays in our time is for everyone - and especially for men! We're just here to support you guys! Please believe me that you are searching - very intently!! And all the answers are in kabbalah - I used to be so confused about everything and now I have all the answers I'll ever need - I put off having kids because I thought I would be a bad mother - but now I know I can give my baby the greatest gift of all - save her from decades of wandering around meaninglessly ... I hope you understand where I'm coming from and I hope you try visiting the blog again. All the best! Josia

Reply to Josia N.
You flatter me by suggesting that my writing is pure philosophy, Josia. It is not. It is not even poor philosophy. It is, as you say, nothing more than the ramblings of my brain. I am impressed that you recognized this. You even go one step beyond in accepting that all this is internal work.

I will risk offending you by pointing out that kabbalah is not science. It also is the ramblings of someone’s brain. It is an inside outside experience initially. The rest is an attempt to rationalize the irrational. I can say this with some certainty because of your obvious commitment to it. Commitment and a need to win others to your conclusions strongly suggest a religious conviction, and religion is totally irrational. It is what you feel, not what you have proven. It may explain what the goal is (for me the goal is survival). It may even suggest how to attain that goal as quickly as possible (since survival is an immediate goal and eternal life seems too implausible to base my life on such a supposition, I must confess some confusion), but it is not a science.

I am saddened that your friend abandoned her story of miracles and healing, though I do not share her beliefs. It was her story, her path, to develop and to enrich her life and perhaps the lives of others. If she was sharing her journey with you, you should feel honored. If she was trying to win you to the Lord or some similar deity, then her determination to dominate would rightly offend you. I hope she has found as much satisfaction in kabbalah as she found in miracles and healing.

I read the article on your website by Rabbi Michael Laitman. It seemed to suggest that the goal of life is “an upper world, which is filled with pleasures” and that the purpose in life is to achieve “tranquility, eternity, and unbounded joy while still living in this life.” I do not believe in an upper world. It sounds suspiciously like Heaven. I do not believe life is about pleasure at all (though I must admit experiments in which animals whose brains were electrically stimulated by wires attached to their pleasure centers chose pleasure and ultimately death over food and water are difficult to refute).

I do understand where you’re coming from, Josia, and I wish you well on your journey. I will continue to investigate kabbalah. I have found much wisdom in the writings of those with whom I disagree, and often more wisdom in those with whom I most disagree than in those with whom I totally agree.

“Soul”: Conversation with edjog on Disreputable Aliens website

Posted on Disreputable Aliens website
Much of which I sort of agree with, but not wholly, so i replied thusly:
I think that's too simplistic.
From my own experience, it is possible to apprehend one's environment and those others in it as unpredictable variables and still choose not to compete in consumption, leaving almost everything to chance, whilst knowing chance will inevitably affect the outcome of one's actions anyway. Having said that, it is a lonely perspective and one which may well have contributed to my having spent years consuming drugs. No longer however, life is precious to me these days, too precious to destroy through inordinate fear of pain.

There are other variations and surely ones I haven't thought of. I'm suspicious of any doctrine which has, at its core, a dichotomy. Life has taught me that, in as close to objective reality as my subjective experience of it can get, there is no "on the one hand this, on the other: that" however, as well as biology, insecurity makes people attempt to see life in this way. We have two hands, we look out at the world and are comforted by the notion that "in this hand which I see before me is one thing, in my other: the sole rest of the dilemma" therefore i can "hold" this problem, it is not beyond "my grasp".

Of course, this is not true. Most situations in life have to do with other people who are, as you rightly point out, very complex and ultimately, just as we are to ourselves, unknowable, merely approximately predictable. Those others are similarly affected by still more people and there are also a whole raft of other possibilities involved. This train of thought multiplies the variables exponentially, not even a millipede would have enough limbs to "grasp" them all. However, as Aristotle pointed out,
"All men by nature desire knowledge."

Which statement would tend to suggest that we must somehow plot a course through these variables, engage with our experience and extract meaning from it. Certainly, survival without knowledge would be difficult, but not impossible, or else how would creatures without much, if any, conscious thought survive?

I think the truth is more complicated again, because we don't have a conscious will to survive and thus a 'natural' thirst for knowledge, but rather a disinclination to repeat actions that seem to cause us pain, unless there is some greater factor of fear involved. I would also disagree with your notion of the soul, for me my soul is that quiet part of myself which has always been there, regardless of what my knowledge, feelings or others' opinion tell me, it says there need not be a point to life in order for it to be worthwhile. That in fact, if there is a point it is ineffable, life is all the more beautiful for that and, despite many people's best efforts, will continue. It holds a compass which, should I choose to take note of where it points, will steer me toward what is best, not just for me either. The sad truth is that this is often incompatible with modern civilization and perhaps why so few of us choose to look there, because having to comply with that which one knows is wrong is surely one of the most overwhelming sources of pain.

"To know that you do not know is the best.
To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease."
Lao-tzu, the Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)
So that then is true faith, to realize that one will never understand, but to crack on anyway and be at peace with that. Personally, I wish I could keep that notion firmly fixed in my mind at all times, but no... I get sucked into the whirlpool of striving and before I know it, my choices are being limited; my fear of undesirable outcomes has me making poor decisions based on a desperate need to mistakenly apply Ockham's Razor. It's not until I've cut myself with it and that hurts enough that I then remember, not me... I don't have an answer to everything nor need I. Then I'll be quiet, then I hear my soul and whether I survive or not seems of little consequence, but seemingly at odds with my instincts, that is when I make my best decisions.
Posted by edjog

Reply to edjog
It’s reassuring to hear from someone who seems to have seriously thought about his relationship with the environment without the often overwhelming demands of culture blinding him to his ultimate aloneness and his complete lack of defense against that which cannot be controlled. I am not an anarchist, but I am aware of the significance of chance in determining our existence and our continuing existence. You seem to have found a path that makes sense to you, and I must admit, it appeals to me.

My interpretation of life is way too simplistic. I admit that. I work hard to keep it that way. In fact, I am trying very hard to make it even simpler. I get confused easily and I lack the intelligence, education and experience to keep an even keel through the turmoil I see around me. I am heartened that you have found a way to ride the waves. I am still struggling just to keep my head above water.

I am surprised with how many things in your article I agree with. I agree that we do not have a conscious will to survive. As an evolutionist, I believe this will to survive is buried deep within us, a part of our very genes. I believe it is a natural consequence of our having stayed alive through the aeons of evolution. We certainly don’t have a natural thirst for knowledge else so many of us would not be so ignorant and so often taking pride in our ignorance. Even your concept of the soul is remarkably close to mine, though yours is a source of comfort in itself, while mine is a sort of comfort that God wants what is best for me, but even so allows me to make those decisions that determine who I am. Your idea that the soul is a compass and my idea that the soul is the path I follow of my own volition taking full responsibility for where it leads me, yet is an assurance that there is a compass that I can follow if I can determine its direction through the maze of the culture that has formed me, seems compatible.

In my opinion, your last sentence is excellent. Our goal seems to be the same though our paths may be somewhat different. I wish you well, though you seem to be doing great without my good wishes.
PaulEdward

Disreputable Replies
Oh, how i wish things were quite as good as PaulEdward suggests! The truth is that i am often confused, more often dragged into the "overwhelming demands of culture" and generally quite pissed off as a result. The only way i have of riding "the waves" is NA. I too rely on one simplicity: Don't use [drugs/drink/insert lunacy of your choice], even if your arse falls off! This (which i cannot currently attribute, but i'm researching!), at least, gives me some opportunity to find out what my soul is saying and gives me an option to go with it.Many people say they're not anarchists. I wonder how many would find that their ideals match very closely with anarchist thinking? It's my belief that just because we're stuck in the gutter, currently, that's no reason to deny that the stars exist, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde.
Posted by edjog

“Spiritual” Responds to edjog’s sharing of “deepest despair”

Well written and interesting. Couple of points though - Spirit doesn't always raise us up from deepest despair. I’ve known too many whom despair conquered; who died through recklessness or deliberately. It's only chance/divine intervention/my soul (who knows?) that saved me from a similar fate. Far from a sense of transcendence, this period of my life was characterized, almost mantra like, by the thought, "Fuck you, i won't..." Not that i can really say who this was directed at, even after therapy. It was very general, possibly even myself. Nor could i have defined exactly what it was that i wouldn't: die possibly, give in, and knuckle under? All these would have been possibilities.

This is what brings me to Soul. I think it's immutable, immortal, rather than a gift, actually part of the divine. I was a particularly questioning child, not just, "why?" but "why not?" Now, it's possible that my parents were just spectacularly bad at the platitudes which are used to deflect the questions of children, when the answer isn't known/dare not be contemplated, but that seems unlikely. I was just not satisfied with them. I believe this was my soul's response to finding itself in a world where so much, not only makes no sense, but is plain wrong. Intellectually, i didn't have the capacity of a chimpanzee, but my soul knew mendacity when it was confronted by it. Strangely (it seems, in comparison to most people I’ve met, because obviously, it's not strange to me), i can clearly remember these times, right back to times where my view of the world was obstructed by the bars of my cot.

That was the nature of my soul being manifest. Regardless of how it was different from anybody around who might possibly have inspired my intellectual development, or how it made adults uncomfortable and thus got me into trouble. To what else would i ascribe a 4 year old's realization that religion was a means by which adults where told how to live, just as rules like bed time were for me? I didn't know any adults who even thought about such questions until i was much older.

To go back to my first point, this is what i now believe i would not: abandon my soul so i could fit in, nor give up on life. Somehow, i would reconcile my conflicts or at least learn to accept that they are irreconcilable and crack on regardless.

There is another reason for "the Pagan" to engage with the world through an alternate model than the modern scientific: curiosity. Much like blogging, we put our thoughts out there and only the determinedly self-centered would believe that, individually, they will make any difference to the grand scheme of things, but we are curious to see what comes back. For me, the nature of what's come back, metaphysically, is enough to convince me of the numinous nature of all life (although I’d been vegetarian for 14 years by then). Like you say, it's a relationship, but for me one that's always been there, just that i wasn't aware of it before.

Friends: true friendship asks only for respect. Everything else is a mutual coping strategy, likely based on some form of dishonesty.
Have a good one, bah humbug and all that, e

War against Conservatism
Let us see then if we cannot in fact eff the ineffable ~ Douglas Adams RIP
More: Disreputable Lazy Aliens
Submitted by edjog


Reply to edjog
Edjog, it’s always a pleasure to read your comments. I was not aware that you were a vegetarian. Does that just mean you do not eat meat or are you a Vegan and do not consume any animal products: eggs, milk, etc?

I do not remember much about my early youth, a little more about adolescence and more clearly my early adulthood, but I do recall feelings of inadequacy possibly because of my religious convictions. I do not, however, remember so much the rules of religion as I do the overall burden of it, the suffocating desire to please something or someone who could never be satisfied.

I like your definition of friendship. I have come to regard that which cannot be controlled (God) as a friend. I find it irritating when others refer to God as love, even when they say “God loves you.” Somehow this seems to diminish that which cannot be controlled (God) by binding Him in a loving (potentially overpowering and certainly dependent on my emotional attachment) relationship. I see the relationship as one of mutual respect and affection, and not dependent one on the other.

You always seem to end your comments with a really insightful statement. It seems to suggest that whatever route you take, you always know where you’re going, and you get there.

Hey PaulEdward
No not Vegan, merely nothing that was once a living creature. I have to make a daily compromise with my hypocrisy and try to do better. I have been Vegan but ended up very ill. The organization that's needed to get a properly balanced diet without eggs and dairy has always eluded me except as part of a collective, of which i am no longer.
Yes, i identify with that "suffocating desire to please something or someone who could never be satisfied" although for me it was society in general and specifically those who were in positions of authority over me. As with religion, i rejected the lot of it. It was a classic 'baby out with the bath-water' job and I’m only now relearning many of the strictures of life and that some of them are there because that is actually the least burdensome of ways of going about whatever they pertain to. The mad thing is, despite my clear memories of earlier, there are whole sections of my early adulthood that are like a memory of one long day: insanely running around amassing resources, dealing drugs and consuming them, interspersed with moments of particular pain or joy.
I'm suspicious when anyone tries to define God (and it almost always is just that, not 'Goddess', 'The Divine' or even just 'A Spiritual Higher Power'), how one should seek to apprehend the reality of such, behave towards or as a result of said. One either gets it or one is more than likely looking in the wrong places, probably blinded by a dogmatic approach to life. From my own experience: religion is the antithesis of what my spiritual nature tells me; precisely because of its nature, it precludes me from telling anybody else what it is. It's personal and thus could not but hinder another's search. Clues, though, truthful accounts of others' journeys: that makes sense to me.
Re: "really insightful statement." Thanks but i suspect that, in as much as I’m aware of it, it's probably vanity; a desire to imitate that which has seemed cool to me. So, in that vein: it only seems to suggest that i know where I’m going and that in itself may well be part of what I’m about, i.e. trying to convince myself of this, whereas the truth is: I’m as confused as the next fool, but at least i know that and am neither content nor blaming anybody else.
Submitted by edjog

“Spiritual” Response to Shane’s Request for Religious Affiliation

Hi Paul,
I'm curious to know what religion, if any, you belong to.
Submitted by Shane


Reply to Shane
Your interest in what religion I belong to or if I belong to any at all took me completely by surprise, Shane. You realize, of course, that I cannot tell you. All my reasons for not telling you are pretty much of the same importance, so I will give them at random.

My religious affiliation or my lack thereof would change the way you perceive my relationship with God. I am deeply religious, but by the standards of any religion, I am an atheist. I do not believe in God. I do not believe God exists. I am thoroughly convinced that science has trumped religion, but I have a relationship with God no matter how self-serving that scientifically apparent delusion may be. For me the relationship is real. Under such a circumstance, no atheist organization (religion if its members seek to persuade others to abandon their theist beliefs and replace them with a more rational dogma) would accept me as one of their own.

I do not believe in God, because belief is an admission of doubt. Doubt suggests I must prove something to someone. I have a relationship. It is personal. It is something I can share, but only by talking about myself or making up stories to stimulate a mythological response can I make others aware of that relationship. It is based totally on faith. You will have to accept or reject your own relationship and set your own parameters for what you will believe and what you will not believe. I cannot do that for you nor would I want to. There are those that will attempt to set those parameters for you if you wish them to do so.

I believe that God is beyond existence, that He created existence. Trying to make God part of existence is an attempt to diminish Him, an attempt to make Him manageable, to domesticate Him, to make Him less awesome.

Labeling is useful. It is a way to simplify a person or a concept. However, labeling myself marks my message, if it is seen as such, and changes its meaning and its intent. I move from sharing to snaring, evangelizing, selling a product. My message, if I have one, is that everyone chooses their own path through life whether they admit or not, but not everyone is truthful about the path they have chosen, often not even with themselves. My intent is to encourage others to share the true direction of their lives. These are difficult times. We are badly in need of a religious renaissance (I consider Atheism a religion). By religious renaissance I mean a lot of people sharing, comparing, arguing and justifying their spiritual convictions, not as members of a group so much as individuals.

Labeling myself would embarrass the group that shares my journey, but not my path. It should be obvious to you if you have read my articles that I stray from the beaten paths. I share my relationship with God with the individuals in my affiliation, but I do not try to convert them. How could I? It’s a relationship. Publicly identifying myself as a member of any particular group exposes that group as accepting my theology (world view) by allowing me to continue in their fellowship. It also contaminates my theology (world view) with the dogma of those with whom I commune.

I am also concerned that someone might read my response and say, “I am so disappointed. I thought he was one of us.”

Coincidentally, a friend having just read ‘Spiritual’ said to me just the other day, “I did not understand a word in your article. It is way beyond me.” I have noticed that people grouped together for an extended period of time begin to use words unfamiliar to those outside the group. They seem completely unaware of these changes and use the words freely with outsiders. If there are only a few such words, no one really notices, but over a really long period of time a minilanguage, understood only by members of the group, develops. Those who approach others outside the group find it more and more difficult to effectively communicate. The general public hears only gibberish.

Evangelicals of all religious groups (including atheist religious groups), especially the enthusiastic and deeply committed groups, have a real problem with this. Though their thoughts and insights are deep and worthy of consideration, their language makes them appear foolish and inconsequential often forcing them to adopt in their persuasive techniques the very human propensities they originally sought to overcome.
I suspect that whatever may have sparked your interest in my religious affiliation or lack thereof and the inability of my friend to even begin to understand what I was trying to say was either a movement in my thinking toward a kind of gibberish or toward pedantry (the affliction of one who writes or talks too much).

“Creation” Responds to Kevin’s “Sigh of Relief” at finding someone who shared his theories

I'm glad I came across this. It gives me a sigh of relief that I am not the only person who theorizes this. I hope I can remember how I got here so I can come back when I go home. :)
Submitted by Kevin


Reply to Kevin
I just now found this response to ‘Creationism’, Kevin. I’m writing a response assuming you have found your way back. I appreciate your comment and would be interested in hearing how you agree and in what you might add.

I am going to assume that you also are concerned about Biblical Creationism challenging scientific discovery and its consequent conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence. I am an evolutionist. I am also deeply religious, but my justification for a relationship with God is based on evolutionary theory. I do not believe God writes books nor do I believe He uses ghost writers to write them for Him.

It is inconceivable to me that serious religious leaders would encourage their followers to ignore the truly awesome extent, in both size and in time, of God’s creation that science has revealed to us, that they would turn God into a simple magician turning dust into us, when the intricacy of evolutionary development suggests a truly masterful craftsman. The only explanation I can think of is arrogance, the placing of ourselves before God. We are so embarrassed by our animal nature and thus our sharing of a common ancestor with other primates that we diminish God to make ourselves look more Godlike. This is of course only opinion, and I would welcome your ideas in this regard.

I am also uneasy about the growing determination to make Intelligent Design a scientific conclusion and therefore a concept to be taught in schools. My problem is not so much a rejection of the idea as it is a rejection of its being scientific. Although it does explain some very fragile aspects of the development of this very complex cosmos and the equally complex development of its lifeforms, the sheer size of the universe (and perhaps beyond the universe) and the sheer length of time during which it has existed makes it also possible that that complexity developed coincidentally.

I have found that although God contributes to my appreciation of that which surrounds me and to the realistic apprehension of my insignificance in time and space and encourages an empathic response to those around me with sympathy for those in pain, He gets in the way of my comprehension of how the world works. There is always the feeling that I am challenging God when I discover something new and so the temptation to ignore my discovery and the discovery of others; the feeling that I should remain ignorant. Therefore teaching Intelligent Design in schools seems more indoctrination than education. Education develops a questioning mind and gives you the tools to work toward answering questions. Evolution teaches discernment based on evidence. Intelligent Design teaches nothing useful, though being a person of faith, I find it intriguing and exhilarating. It should most certainly be presented by religious institutions, but not as scientific proof of anything, and it most certainly should not be taught in schools. If you do not agree with me on this issue, I look forward to hearing your opinion.

I very much appreciate your responding to ‘Creationism’. It was written a few months ago and was almost immediately buried beneath the articles of others. There is always the feeling that after the first few days of a posting an article is pretty much lost. I am reassured to find that someone is still reading it.

“Spiritual” in its Response to John Patterson's Post


Responding to "Spiritual"
Our soul is the marriage of the Holy Spirit to our unique DNA configuration, thus our body becomes the vessel that hosts and defines that soul, which abides in a spiritual form long after that body has dusted away. And that spiritual form, made from this marriage of spirit and flesh, retains all the memory, emotions and cosmic karma gathered during those mortal throes.

The "demons" that eat away at our soul and hold it back from transcendence, are manifest in our base desires. Our act of free will comes in choosing to succumb to or resist those desires on a daily basis; which is why every soul is unique. And why some of them find paradise and others torment.

Greed, vengeance, and the lust for power are three of the primary "neocon demons" that influence us as a nation, and were directly involved in our march to war.
Submitted by John Patterson

"Spiritual" Response
I honestly did not expect you to reply, John. Most people who are committed do not waste time sharing their commitment with someone who does not share their commitment and especially on someone so obviously uninterested in a commitment. And you listened. You have not in your answer overwhelmed me with your obvious commitment. I am not blinded by your response. I am however still confused, this time because of a few words you used that spark an emotional response from me I’m pretty sure you did not intend.

I think first I should clarify my position on life in general. Zorba the Greek said “Life is what you do before you die.” I would state my position somewhat differently. I would say “Life is staying alive. Joy is in continueing to stay alive.”

Your position seems different still, but I can’t quite decipher it even though you have done a really good job simplifying it. I have a million questions, but hesitate to ask any because I’m pretty sure many of them reflect my emotional response rather than any real understanding of what you are trying to share

One of my problems is with the word “marriage,” especially in reference to the bonding of Holy Spirit with DNA. Marriage implies mutual consent, but such a nonconsensual bonding seems to suggest a kind of rape. If bonding, a more emotion neutral word, had been used, I could have related to the statement as a precursor to a voluntary relationship with God (assuming the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Christian God and therefore God if you believe in only one God). I was not exactly blinded by the word “marriage,” but it was kind of like using a floodlight for a streetlight. I had to avert my eyes. I would be interested to know if there was some specific purpose in using “marriage” or if it was simply a kind of exclamation point.

“Demons” is another word I found distracting emotionally. Demons are irritating little creatures much like flies or mosquitoes in my emotional response to them. I speak mythologically of course because I do not believe in demons though I am familiar with the concept. I would like to know the purpose for using the word. I am pretty sure I missed your real intent.

“Base desires” is especially troubling for me. I am an evolutionist and I suspect you are referring to the instincts that have ultimately made me possible by keeping my ancestors alive since the beginning of life on Earth. I believe they still have much more value than we credit them with. You name greed, vengeance and the lust for power as some, and I can agree that these natural instincts need to be controlled, but I believe they serve a useful purpose and I would mention that there are other instincts (emotions, intuitions) that can direct these sometimes overpowering feelings towards nurturing and sustaining goals in life. Perhaps you could share other “base desires” and why you consider them undesirable. Please don’t call them evil. That’s another emotional word that means many different things to different people.

“Neocons” is an emotional word for many people. I find the term amusing, but placed as it is at the end of your response it is like a detour sign without a suggested alternate route. I’m pretty sure you dislike neocons, but I’m not sure what you consider neocons to be or why you dislike them.

I realize we are probably worlds apart in the paths we follow and even in the reasons for choosing our particular paths. I would understand why you might not want to continue to share with someone so distant theologically, but I do find your journey fascinating and if you wish to continue to share, I am more than willing to listen and to share right back.

If I do not hear from you again, I take this opportunity to wish you good fortune on your journey and I encourage you to continue determining your own path.

"Spiritual" in Responding to A Christian Prophet


Response to "Spiritual"
You'll want to check out messages on the Holy Inheritance blog. Spirit is who we really are. Soul is who we think we are. But a cleansed and purified soul becomes pure spirit.
Submitted by A Christian Prophet


"Spiritual" Response
I’m not really sure I understand what your point is, Christian. Perhaps you could clarify it. Are you agreeing with me or are you challenging my interpretation of spirit and soul? The problem could well be that I am approaching the words as language and you are approaching them as commitment.

I went to your website, but was blinded by the commitment there, much like a deer caught in the headlights of oncoming traffic. Consequently, I could not determine the substance of the messages. Perhaps you could dim the lights somewhat (explain your rationale for your obvious commitment, that which stimulated you to follow the path you have chosen). Please keep it simple. I have trouble following convoluted thinking. I will attempt to respond to your reply to ‘Spiritual’, though I might miss the point entirely since the information you have provided is limited.

It seems reasonable, to me at least, to assume that there is no such thing as a soul. In our existential awareness of the aloneness of our self and our realization that there has never been nor will there ever be another me, we apperceive, intuit, that uniqueness as a soul. In hysterical rejection of our isolation, we become aware of a presence close, perhaps part of, our soul. We have the option of welcoming that presence or rejecting it. If we accept it, we have in affect established a relationship with God. I have justified that relationship, since it is one of choice, as decision-oriented and have justified my having a soul by defining it as a gift from God and the sum of all my decisions. I believe that in God’s eyes this is who we really are. It is our essence. I see no other possible rational for there being a soul. This is however a belief. It is not rational. Perhaps you could enlighten me with your interpretation of soul.

We once believed that trees had spirits living in them because they moved in the wind and because their leaves rustled (whispered) when there was no apparent breeze. We still speak of animals having spirit when they demonstrate determination. We once thought that our breathing in and out was our spirit trying to escape and being drawn back in through its attachment to our body. There is still within us the uneasy feeling that our last breath is that spirit finally escaping. We once explained the moving of the air when it invisibly brushed against our cheek as spirits, both good and malevolent, touching us. We once explained sickness as an evil spirit breathed in when we unsuccessfully tried to sneeze it out.

Although I understand the natural tendency to interpret spirit as who we are, especially since we seem to reveal ourselves to others through our spirit or lack of spirit, I believe the word carries too much baggage to be useful. It confuses us, and so tempts us in too many instances to fabricate, to misrepresent what is obviously true, to make a square peg so to speak fit in a round hole. This of course leads to further complexity and consequently more confusion, and more fabrication. If I am overstating the problem or if my concern is more confusing than it is enlightening, I would appreciate your input.

I have a problem with the idea of purification and the need to be cleansed. I believe we can improve ourselves in the eyes of the world, our family, our friends, and even of ourselves if we have a clear goal and a clear path to that goal. Purification and cleansing, however, suggest some degree of self-hatred or uncleanness. It insinuates that there is something inherently wrong with us, some original sin, some evil associated with being mortal. I freely admit that if we were created from something other than God material, if there be such a thing (that “something not God” being nothingness), and if God and only God is good, then we are not good; we are bad, even capable of being evil (a subjective and therefore misleading and/or confusing term). Although I can understand why, therefore, those who believe we are godlike in that we, like God, are not substantial beings and that we are only dwelling in the body of a substantial being, might wish to shed the animal instincts inherent in that body. I can even understand why these same people might wish to chastise the rational tendencies we have used to control what God has created, inasmuch as what we cannot control extrapolates into that which cannot be controlled (God).

However, the fact that many Christians seem to feel a need for purification thoroughly confuses me. It seems inconsistent to say in one breath “Jesus gave his life to purify you” and in the next “You must purify yourself” and/or “This is what you must do to become purified” and/or “I will purify you.” It would seem to me that Jesus’ message would be rather, “God accepts you just the way you are, but you can do better.” If you are not a Christian then this, of course, means nothing, but my uneasiness with anyone or anything that suggests we are in need of purification still stands regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Perhaps you could reassure me in that regard, Christian.

Your commitment is commendable. I would like to hear more about it.