There are no gods. Which is only one less than the many from the start.

If God wants us to use our OWN intelligence. Then at some point, we might be allowed to stop thinking about God. Since he became superfluous.

somebody asked him (I forget who) how they would receive the counsel of God if Jesus was not going to be walking among them. His answer was that the Holy Spirit would enter the mind and heart of anyone who opens themselves to him. That's a paraphrase, of course, but the gist of it.

What's the point here? That he didn't say he'd be putting a book together for all to follow. It was the living spirit of God within each person. He didn't say he'd make a large institution with a hierarchy of priests and bishops to intercede between God and the people. It was direct divinity within the individual her or himself that is there to guide us forward.

As I see it, outwardly it changes nothing. We have the exact same life before and after our recognition of the Holy Spirit within ourselves. But it reorients our minds to the divine nature in life and through that we can think, feel and act out of that perspective which does change everything for us personally and then, by extension, the world around us.

The Bible and other scriptures from any religion can be used then for contemplating issues and dilemmas, for helping us return back to that inner connection when it feels like it's unraveling or missing altogether. But I appreciate how it's the living Holy Spirit that is the connection, that it implies we have to use our own intelligence to figure things out and if we get it wrong we will learn. No shortcuts or free passes but steady, unwavering love, understanding and guidance from within.

So long as religion lays down incontrovertible truths, there will always be disputes regarding what those truths are. Those disputes will continue to disrupt all three of the goals you mentioned just as they have for thousands of years.

"Religion" is an empty container for the expression of spiritual practices. We may not like how they manifest in this world but that is a reflection on us, not the concept of religion. If we can't imagine better, highly doubtful it will happen. If we can imagine the worst, and we humans certainly have, well...history is full of the horrors done in the practice of religion and that's how that story goes.

You may want to imagine no religion, but the concept is already a basic, fundamental aspect of human culture. It's not going away. We ought to imagine better - and many people do - if we don't want religion to be used to destroy us either physically, emotionally, mentally or spiritually. That goes for the community as well as the individual.

Nietszche was an atheist, but he thought we needed a new religion because we no longer believed in the old lies, er, gods.

They want someone else to do that for them.

They need a sense of the sacred or the sublime.

I think what really sets atheists apart is not that they are more rational or think more. Some may be, but my general observation of people is that almost all of us are much less rational than we think we are.

I think what makes atheists different is that they either have a weaker need for sacredness, or they fill that need elsewhere. If you were raised in a religion, it's likely you will feel the sacred there and never question it. If you don't feel it, you start to question it, and either end up in a different religion or become an atheist.

I can tell you that I need a sense of the sacred and sublime, and I can get it through religious practice and study even though I don't believe. I also get it by looking up at the stars or at astronomical photographs. So I can go either way.

I see organized religion as a deliberate hoax, perpetrated for millennia for power and wealth.

There is much to amaze and astound in the real world. I spent a sleepless night at age 12, contemplating infinity as a concept. I needed no supernatural nonsense. There was more in reality than I could fully understand.

There is far more than we can conceive.

Do you also see government, and every other human organization, as being concerned only with power and wealth?

It has to tap into some basic emotional needs. You got that need met elsewhere early on. But other people have a different experience. You can be religious without believing in the supernatural. I think there are a lot of people like that, who are just there for meeting emotional needs, but don't actually believe it.

The need for sacredness. And there is also the human need for community as well, which explains part of the "why" in religion.


That connection to other humans is vital for our emotional well being.

Sacred permeates our lives even 'tho it is assumed 'by some' that it needs be in some form of organized religious stuff.

Maybe more of a normalcy bias. In the normal world, one thing causes another, so we have hard time thinking of a universe without a cause, and something looking designed without a designer.

trying desperately to shape something remotely sensible out of poorly written contradictory ancient fables.

For the vast majority of religious people it’s just rote behavior surrounded by meaningless platitudes.

In our imagination.

You'll never get rid of religion anymore than you'll get rid of government. They are archetypes of human culture. We modern humans have gone in a very dark direction imagining their potential. And if we can't imagine something better, it'll never be better.

That's a straw man.

Imagining things is great - but let's not pretend there has ever been a religion that only brings "peace, harmony and understanding."

We are far better off acknowledging our human limitations, and not assigning divine meaning to ANYONE's imagined ideas. That's what gets us into trouble.

There's a big difference between somebody saying, "This is how I see it", versus, "This is how it is." I've only recently come to an understanding of "orthodoxy" that is useful to me. Essentially, I understand it being a *common* interpretation of the meaning of scripture, philosophy, etc. Stuff like that has to be argued, debated and eventually agreed upon. That's essential for an organization to function as a whole but is just plain wrong when they insist everyone else believe it too. That common interpretation exists for those who choose to participate in it, anyone outside that group hasn't agreed to it at all. Most of our modern religions unfortunately do not respect individuals who sees things differently. Or more precisely, it's the failure of the practitioners of these religions. And that's not just a religious thing. Happens with all kinds of groups of people around just about any subject (i.e., what's the best form of government, best economic system, best style, best race )...

As for religions bringing peace, love and harmony...I find it best to be picky about what to take in from them. I could point any of them out - Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., - and find ways they do contribute to these qualities in the world. But they are also "all too human" (a nietzsche reference) and all too often manifest the exact opposites. We will find purity only in labs.

Plenty of moral guides have been invented with and without religion - we can evaluate them on their merits instead of giving any special preference or consideration about whether they are religious in origin. They all come from humans ultimately - no divine origin has ever been demonstrated.

My view, one shared with others, is that we all share in the divine essence by virtue of our sentience. Our sentience is what was referred to when the Bible speaks of being created in the image and likeness of the Creator.

uttered for edification, guidance, etc. were included in 'scripture' form, the volumes would be able to encircle the globe end-to-end.

I say, in love, go make something outta that now.

somebody else making excuses for a book that is self contradictory and full of false history and down right unfactual.

Read it like it is meaningless, but look for it's "wisdom". Disregarding the ugly stuff.

Of what use, then, is the Bible?

That, of course, is a rhetorical question, since some of us figured that all out decades ago.

Most atheists don't want to use any theology at all. But when addressing believers who won't listen to anything else, or speaking to borderline believers, looking for an exit, this could be useful?

A "theologian" is trying to find some way to rescue a scripture ridden with contradictions. That's all this is. And here, we keep hearing that's all "metaphor." C'est pour rire... "

Desperation.

And you're supposed to take it all literally.

It denotes possibility rather than a declarative statement.

Even a very, very liberal one that hovers on the edge of, looks like it is headed toward becoming, being, atheistic, or humanist.

However, for those who still want to keep one foot in religious waters, or be transitional figures, corridors, pathways, compromises, between religion and atheism? Peter Enns and his non literal translations could be useful. Especially say, his concept of the Bible's "incarnational" character. His reading suggesting that a close reading of the Bible may show that it even deliberately but subtly reveals its perhaps very human - and almost openly flawed - side.

Many atheists to be sure, were raised with not literal, but this kind of more critical liberal, metaphorical Christianity. And at some point though, they got tired of even the most liberal churches. For various reasons.

One reason being their still-lingering ties to obviously destructive, fundamentalist, evangelical literalists.

If you, Guil, want sit with one foot in and one foot out, that is your right. And that position can be useful in helping many believers to see how to step out of the swamp. At the same time, our more uncompromising atheism, in this blog, is obviously, often, impatient with such a compromised position.

Though I would add? It is useful even for atheists to have at least one defending believer on the blog; raising objections to atheism, defences to religion, that atheists may still need to learn to recognize, and counter.

There are destructive people. We know that. Trump is one such destructive person. In my opinion, Trump's destructive personality is based on hatred for others, and possibly some self-hatred as well.


And I have stated numerous times that religious faith has no need of proofs. It is called faith because it is not evidence based.


And the non-literalist group has been in the RCC for many years. I attended an RCC university and was exposed to this in the 1960s. And the Jesuits who spoke of non-literalism were educated in the 1940s and 1950s.

that the Bible is not an owner's manual, is not a guide to good living, especially considering the very many contradictions within it, and happily go on our own way. Without the "Bible" or any other supposed holy book. We understand that good living has NOTHING to do with some bizarre supposedly ancient holy book that has zero relevance to our time.

Any questions?

My view is that actions count. And respecting others.

It's a nice view to have, but YOUR actions definitely don't reflect that.

I believe he's saying "The Bible has contradictions because people and society evolve. So we should learn from that and evolve."

The logical conclusion of that evolution would be leaving behind a book from the Bronze Age that focuses on one small region of the Earth and the small population that lived there.

But, the author also believes in the Creator, and the message of Jesus. So, for him, and millions of others, the book has relevance.

Maybe if we stop giving special status to certain books, we could get past a lot of religion's problems.

Last edited Tue Feb 26, 2019, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

...talking about creators and magical stories from second and/or thirtieth hand, poorly transcribed, bronze and iron age texts?

The number of believers doesn't provide one iota of support to the question in fact.

The beliefs of millions (living or dead) are summarily dismissed all the time (Zeus, anyone), and the beliefs of millions more need to be equally dismissed also, if we're to continue our progress.

If we're supposed to grow and move on from this nonsense, let's get to it.

There is no creator, unless you can provide factual, repeatable and real evidence of the creator's creator ad infinitum.

Until then, the concept of a creator is nothing more than a mere phantom of the mind, ad infinitum. A wish, and no more.

Accept your personal responsibility for your choices, for your life, for your own future, as it is in reality and as you can make it to be.

Appealing to phantasms isn't helping anyone.

The appeal to phantasms is actually holding back our progress at this point in time.

And if one has faith, or no faith, one should still try to make progress in treating others well.

...what help is faith? It is what holds us back.

Why cling to that unnecessary waste of energy?

And faith in what, exactly?

It is a fact that cancer exists.

Faith is a belief in the unprovable.

...ok, but for what purpose?

What does faith provide? Why have faith?

And faith in what exactly? Please explain/clarify.

Faith provides a narrative structure, and a moral structure.

Faith, in one aspect, provides community.

I believe that the Creator initiated the creation process that eventually resulted in the 2 of us speaking here.

Because we don't know what such a Creator actually wants. People then fight over the desires of this inscrutable Creator.

If you then say you are "following Jesus" that provides no better structure, because people can't agree on what Jesus wants, so people then fight over what Jesus wants. Or when a dominant Christian group gets control, it supresses all the others.

Where then comes a firm morality that we don't fight over?

My view is that the Anglo-American secular tradition provides a better narrative(Despite being a political liberal, philosophically I'm a Burkean conservative). We fought over it in the past, and out of those fights came a narrative of individual rights and freedom of conscience. We agree that tolerance for different viewpoints is the best way to get along with each other. But it didn't come out of the Christian tradition because historically, Christians were never very tolerant.

We should also consider that the militant atheism we find in Marxism-Leninism and it's offshoots is also not part of the Anglo-American tradition. So your criticism of those governments misses the mark. There is no militant atheism in our tradition, there is only freedom of conscience.

...were not "militant atheists", they were anti-religion(ists).

Whether Marx (ists) or Lenin(ists) were atheists is irrelevant. They're opposition to the religious structures of their time and place were due to a direct competition for political power and control.

There is no such thing as a "militant atheist" in regards to human conflicts arising from human politics.

Atheism does not address questions of power and control, atheism is not a governmental or political philosophy, it is merely and only the rejection of one specific claim.

But I think that would include the many atheists who are also critical of religion but don't want to use state power to suppress it.

I think it is relevant that Marxists were atheists, because often religion supports state power, and Marxists did not want that kind of support.

Whatever formal definition you want to use for atheism, you do get atheists who want to marry atheism to other ideas and then carry out certain agendas. You can call such people whatever you want.

As to history, and Christians, for most of history CE, the world was ruled by monarchs. And those monarchs used religion, among other identifiers, to consolidate their own power.

As to militant atheism, or, perhaps better, power centered atheism, the rulers again use atheism, among other identifiers, to consolidate power and to divide and control.

Religion played willing accomplice to the ambition of monarchs.

And for their own reasons.

But monarchs, and dictators, and all leaders use what works in their respective cultures to attain power and to keep power.

I judge that it is bad.

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2019, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

A faith that provides a moral structure for only one person is not very helpful at all. And all that happens is that some other structure supercedes it so that we can have a common belief system to operate from. That superceding structure is where your own morality comes from.

But if he were to ask, I would give it.

Even below pressing flowers in terms of the good it does in the world.

Yes, perhaps.

But it actually doesn't.

...to be moral?

Is faith necessary for a community to exist?

We have to have faith in the rule of law for example. If people lose faith in that, the community breaks down. We are losing faith in the rule of law right now and it's increasing political divisions and violence.

...and normally we, in the US as a class, have a trust in the rule of law and the equitable enforcement thereof.

People in general are losing trust in the rule of law due to the inequitable enforcement as exemplified by the kneeling protests and the rise of Black Lives Matter in response to the acquittal George Zimmerman and the police and court activities in Ferguson MO.

The reason for this inequitably can be traced back to racism and the concept of white supremacy, of which the latter is a direct derivative of the sons of ham theological doctrine. Another bad idea from religion.

Your use of faith (with a small "f" ) as a synonym for trust does not answer my question to Gui, which is about faith with a capital "F".

Gui's definition of 'Faith' is that it cannot be proven, which to me is an idea that then has no utility in-of-itself. Laws have demonstrable utility, as illustrated by your lament of their decay and apparent loss.

Gil's definition of words is often flexible, so I am not sure how he using some words.

I just see that we now have a government for whom the rule of law does not apply.