🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 24, 11:20 pm, "Carl Sagan's billions" <mm2te...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I struggled for a long time, in my younger years, trying to
> understand the basic doctrines, the core beliefs, the philosophies,
> the essence and contradictions in Old versus New Testament, the
> behavior of warrior Christian nations wreaking havoc in non-Christian
> colonies (and still conducting horrible wars on non-Christian people
> in Asia), Genesis, Noah, the many other stories in the Bible, etc..
>
> Then slowly I came to understand several truths described below,
> which eventually enabled me to gradually throw off the yoke,
> the shackles and the blinders of a long childhood indoctrination in
> Christianity, and  I  WAS  FREE ----- FOREVER:
>
> 1. All religions and gods are 'man' made, made and made up
> by humans, not necessarily to deceive but as a result of new
> ideas and concepts that evolved and were then accepted as
> the (new) truth, the (new) philosophy of life, the (new) gospel,
> the (new) 'true' religion.
>
> 2. The Christian concept and definition of a 'soul' is untenable.
> Why? Evolution is a fact but nowhere in the long line of evolution
> was the 'soul' (or something like the soul that makes us immortal)
> suddenly inserted in a certain species at a discrete point in time.
>
> If I assume that the soul was suddenly inserted in a living
> being, e.g., 1 million years ago, we must then argue that his
> or her father and mother did not have a soul. We cannot.
>
> This means:
> All living beings have a soul or no living beings have a soul.  As I
> don't believe a worm has a soul, I must conclude that the concept
> of a soul in each human being can only be a manmade construct.
> A manmade construct because we have a need to believe that
> we (or at least our 'spirit' or our 'soul') are immortal and will
> exist forever.
>
> We fear death, we fear being gone forever.
> We want to deny death, we need to believe we are immortal.
> And we can't avoid to fabricate a reason for our existence.
>
> 3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
> the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade. They were created
> when social groups evolved culturally:  To keep individual behavior
> in line and within boundaries - to be beneficial to the group or to
> its leaders. Heaven was a carrot, hell was the stick.
>
> 4. The Christian dogma of sin, with human beings having free choice
> to obey or disobey, is untenable, as 'sin', killing, fighting, etc.,
> already existed millions of years before human beings came about.
>
> That means in the long line of evolution there was never a discrete
> point where the 'first' human being suddenly had free choice to obey
> or disobey.  That also means the dogma of Christ's death at the cross
> to atone for our sins is untenable. Human beings evolved and never
> (suddenly) had free choice to obey or dis-obey (=sin).
>
> The manmade Christian God sacrificed his son to atone for all
> sins forever for all times. That brilliant idea of hope and redemption
> and forgiveness arose from much older pagan religions that had human
> sacrifices at their core. The ultimate sacrifice for redemption was
> to offer up your own son, as in the Abraham-Isaac story. That's why
> 'man' eventually came up with the idea that Christ - the Son - was
> sacrificed by the Father and died for the sins of all mankind.
>
> As our species homo sapiens evolved over millions of years, there was
> never an Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. That means Eve disobeying
> God and eating from the fruit never happened. That means the 'fall'
> in the garden of Eden never happened.  That also means a 'fall' e.g.
> a million years earlier never happened. That means the philosophy
> of Christ having to die for our original sin, for us disobeying God,
> has no basis in fact.  Our ancestors millions of years ago did
> not have the intellectual capacity nor the choice to obey or disobey.
>
> 5. The Christian concept that you can only be saved by accepting
> Christ as your savior is untenable. As over 4.5 billion on earth are
> not Christians and may not even know about Jesus Christ,
> it is illogical to assume that God automatically condemns
> 4.5 billion out of 6.5 billion to hell = eternal suffering.
>
> Also there are over 100-200 billion stars in our own galaxy,
> with a total of 100-200 billion other galaxies in the visible
> universe, containing billions of inhabited planets. It is illogical
> to assume that God sacrificed his son on billions of planets.
>
> 6. All religions are manmade, which explains the huge variety of
> religions. Any evolving human society develops beliefs about life
> and death, which then often morph into absolute beliefs and then
> finally into structured beliefs = religion.
>
> That's why there are so many religions, so many spin-offs of existing
> religions, and why so many new spin-offs and denominations are
> created all the time, all over the world. There are always new
> thinkers with new ideas, creative thinkers who strongly reject the
> older ideas.
>
> 7. All religions and their spin-offs are manmade, and the concept of
> 'God' including the 'God' of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is man
> made.
>
> As nowhere in the material world we see physical acts/actions by
> a 'God' on matter, there is no reason to assume that an 'immaterial'
> God like the Christian God (who controls, guards, acts on matter
> = interferes in our world) exists.
>
> 8. So we have to face the fact, with courage and logic, and conclude
> that:   GOD IS ABSENT,  IS DEAD  OR  DOES NOT EXIST.
>
> As I find it illogical that if an all powerful God existed, he would
> decide to disappear from our material world = universe into some
> other universe, or even die, i.e., disappear from all possible
> universes, there is only one conclusion left:
>
> There is no immaterial God applying material forces on or into
> our physical environment.
>
> That means all physical and chemical occurrences can be
> explained (sooner or later) without having to introduce a
> supernatural and  'immaterial'  being capable of and actively
> acting on matter.  Therefore the conclusion is that (the Christian)
> God does not exist and was made up.
>
> You can only exist if you are matter or tied to matter.
> You only exist if you can act upon matter. When tied to matter,
> 'one' can be observed, measured, etc., and thus be proven to exist.
>
> Example:
> In the tsunami near Sumatra up to 100,000 innocent children
> were killed in just one hour (in total an estimated 220,000 died).
> 'God' did not do it.
> 'Satan' did not do it.
> Humans did not do it.
> The earth core is cooling, forcing huge plates to move,
> which occasionally rupture or fracture into earthquakes,
> volcanic eruptions, etc., which then can cause terrible
> natural catastrophes such as this tsunami.
> Nowhere did or does the 'hand of God' act anywhere.
> He did not cause it, he did not prevent it.
>
> 9. The mystery of matter and the most crucial question and
> profound mystery of all
>
> --- 'WHY WE (made of matter) EXIST'  ----
>
> does not mean we have to assume an all powerful being like the
> Christian God who creates, controls, acts on matter,
> and rules and monitors everything.
>
> In the last 1000 years more and more mysteries have been explained.
> In the coming thousands of years many more mysteries will be
> resolved. That means religious beliefs get pushed back more and
> more, away from the current simple absolute religious 'truths'
> and beliefs as described in 'holy' books.  Religions always consist
> of a mixture of man made philosophies, myths, theories, taboos,
> legends, laws, rules, remnants of pagan religions, etc.,
> explanations from hundreds of years or even much longer ago,
> and are being pushed back or voided by science and much
> more rational explanations.
>
> That also means a religion such as Christianity can only survive if
> it develops a much better explanation and rationale for the mystery
> of matter and life, and for our existence. However Christianity
> cannot  're-engineer' itself. It cannot offer a science-based
> explanation of life, or even reform itself into a more rational
> philosophy of life.
>
> So it will remain an anti-scientific belief system based on fixed
> explanations for life and death, made by men and women
> who lived hundreds and even thousands of years ago.
>
> The contradiction between what we learn from science and the
> fixed explanations from hundreds and thousands of years ago
> will grow. Christianity and other similar religions likely will
> slowly disappear. The psychological human need for spirituality
> will not disappear, but the dogmas and beliefs of religions such
> as Christianity, Islam and Judaism will become less and less
> acceptable to more and more people.
>
> 10. The core issue is a direct conflict between:
>
> o   the religious/emotional/non-scientific approach or persona and
> o   the scientific/rational approach or persona
>
> Spirituality will stay in various forms, but dogmatic religions based
> on ancient and fixed beliefs will slowly disappear or remain with
> smaller and smaller groups of the uneducated or the un-enlightened
> or the desperate or the frightened or the indoctrinated.
>
> There may be long religious revivals and reactions but
> on longer terms science and associated education
> will (albeit slowly) void ancient belief systems.
>
> However, religions can very well hang on for a long time,
> even when becoming unsatisfactory to many more people, e.g. if
> and when there are no other enticing spiritual/social frameworks
> as substitutes or replacements. For scientists that could well be
> science and the wonders, the size and the unbelievable beauty
> and complexity of the physical universe.
>
> But the masses are poorly educated and never get enthralled
> by nature or by scientific exploration and thought. They do
> get enthralled by food, drink, sex, entertainment and the
> accumulation of material possessions:
> The absence or substitute for or even opposite of spirituality.
>
> The basic science-religion conflict is also why so many religions,
> including Christianity and Islam, in their core must stay so anti-
> science. They can never embrace a much more rational belief
> system that so clearly exposes the phallacies in their inherited
> belief system.
>
> Why is rejecting Christianity in my opinion a step forward?
>
> Instead of believing in fixed philosophies, laws and taboos
> created by men and women many hundreds and even thousands
> of years ago, who did not know any better (not their fault),
> it is much better to determine our own beliefs and truths.
> That will enable us to leave behind outdated laws, fears,
> prejudices, misconceptions, racism, intolerance,
> supremacy feelings, and ancient ideas about death,
> heaven, hell, sin, soul, etc.
>
> That freedom will jettison all the religious garbage that is
> a constant obstructionist obstacle to a better, more rational
> and more humane world.
>
> Rationality does not ENSURE more humanity, but in my
> opinion it is a more promising path than non-rationality
> including religions such as Christianity.
>
> Michael M. Terra - Carl Sagan's Billions and Billions



While what you write is true for the most part (it may be all true but
I just skimmed your post) ...what is logical is not always practical
when it comes to humans. And we can especially see this with our
atheist friends.

Without spiritual values, the atheist is sunk. The atheist that only
has a foundation of ego and hate will never find peace. And this
include the scientists as well. If any theist questioning their faith
should wonder onto alt.atheism they could see this for themselves with
the underlying dissatisfaction with the members and their projection
of this self hate onto others.

What is missing in these atheists lives? '

Spiritual Values' is what they are short on.

Such atheists devoid of spiritual values are 'dogmatic skeptics',
whereas atheists that are open to spiritual vales are of the order of
'skeptical skeptics.' There is a world of difference between the two
types of atheists...night and day difference.

As one dogmatic skeptic put it:

"What is spirit or spirituality?  Without knowing what you mean by the
word, one can't know what you mean.  Why study something for which you
not only have no evidence, but not even a definition?"

A Hindu sage underscores what is wrong with such 'mind manacled
atheists' that think spiritual studies is a waste of time:

"Just as water floes downhill without effort but requires outside
forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the human consciousness
falls to its lowest levels of the senses without effort and energies
to make our consciousness gravitate to more than our base desires."

Professor Peter Kreeft also remarked on this subject of morality:

First level morality could be called survival morality - lets not hit
each other on the head so none of us will die

Second level morality could be justice morality - lets not hit each
other on the head because it is not fair or not right.

Third level morality could be called 'transcend the ego' morality -
lets not hit each other because we love each other. (this third level
morality comes from spiritual studies and religion)

Just being an atheists does nothing for one morality and virtue. As I
said, all one has to do is look around here for proof of that. If
anything, alt.athist does a disservice to atheism by demonstrating how
low the human sprit can sink without any connection to spiritual
values.

When you write:

"An atheist's belief is not dependent on their fear, pain, and
pleasure -- he will believe in what the evidence shows,"

This is not true. Every atheists serves 2 Gods whether they like it or
not. of course atheists will never admit this since it makes them
theist of sorts. But until they accept they have a higher power to
serve their life will Connie on the downward spire of self
destruction. (Please not, I am not trotting to play games here and
convince atheists that the 2 gods I write about are Yahweh.)

See:

 http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0



Yes, spiritual concepts are hard to define, just as the source of the
wind is hard to define. We can describe spiritual concepts but it is
impossible to put our finger on it all exactly. Spiritual growth is a
journey that is a never ending, imperfect process in this life.  But
just as we can see the effects of the wind while being blind to its
source, We can most definitely see the difference in people that live
a life devoid of any spiritual values whatsoever to those people that
incorporate spiritual values in their lives.

I was at a religious discussion where the group was composed of a wide
spectrum of believers and non believers. One atheist said he ran his
life by the golden rule. Another person piped up that the golden rule
came from the bible, which made the atheist wince. The atheist seemed
to take pride in his self sufficiency and did not like to run his life
by anything that came out of the bible. Then when it came up that the
golden rule might be from another source than he bible the atheist was
relieved.

This was a good reminder to me to examine where my guiding light
resides? Is it ego based or truth based? When the guiding light of
this atheist was not grounded in the bible he was happy. But when it
came from an area that he did not like, he was upset. How can the same
material be used to build a palace by one man, yet only build a hovel
for another? By one spiritual practitioner seeing truth and applying
it to live a life at peace. And the other person only seeing prejudice
and problems and doing nothing.

Every religion was made by man and as such every religion is imperfect
as it is run by man. Despite these imperfections, each religion also
has many "perfection's" within it as well. We can still be open to
peace generating tools from any of the religions and spiritual
traditions that are available to us if we are serious about being at
peace. This requires us to run our life by truth and not by prejudice.
In the Sermon on the Mount, it was reported that Jesus said:
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to
them" (Matthew 7:12). Nowadays this verse is commonly referred to as
"The Golden Rule," and is more commonly quoted as: "Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you." I've been told this concept is much
older than the bible. Here are a few sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause
him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient
Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.

* ~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another
whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5,
Zoroastrianism.

* ? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."
- Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.

* ~550 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your
countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh,
new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.

* ~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find
hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.

Now, whether you believe in God or believe in Jesus or are an atheist
or Buddhist does this wisdom not apply to you? Some say Jesus was a
myth created by the Christians. Even so, does it make the golden rule
false? This truth is generally universal in nature. Neil wont agree
that it is ultimate universal truth, but if Neil is wait to find
ultimate, universal truth when it comes to spiritual values and morals
he will be waiting a long time. This is why Neil is Neil...analysis
paralysis. Aristotle shed a little light on this subject - "It is the
mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without
accepting it and to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which
the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only
an approximation is possible." And while Neil is educated and smart
academically, Neil is also bankrupt when it comes to spiritual values.

In this case, you can adopt a peace generating tool and apply it to
your life irrespective of your religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Wisdom for living a life at peace is all around us for the taking. But
many of us get blinded with labels and personal prejudices. Whenever
we take it upon ourselves to beat down, we are headed in a direction
of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well as others peace.
As such, I practice from many religious and spiritual traditions
without problems or prejudices and readily look for such gifts
irrespective of what label they come under - on the contrary I am most
grateful wherever I find them. If I am not able to use a concept, I
leave it alone, but do not spend my time or energies to beat others
down. Do we like to be beaten down?

I see this predisposition to destruction many times in responses I
receive from my posts. The critiques offer much in the line of 'no
goods' but they seldom do they offer any substantive tools to finding
peace. Maybe I do not have it '100% right' but I have it 'right
enough' to be able to be at peace if I apply these principles. If I
waited for perfection like Neil, I would never act. I use the tools at
hand the best I can.

This being able to 'rest satisfied' is something the perfectionists
lack and why they will never be at peace until they stop collecting
concepts and start using the concepts of peace generation. Their
practice is ego based, mine is practice based. We can examine our
writing to see what useful tools for finding peace we offer others or
is all our efforts to beat others down? When you practice peace
promotion you will reap inner peace promotion. When you practice
destroying others peace you will reap self destruction of inner peace.
This is karma in action, this is the bible, 'reap as yea sow,' this is
universal truth.

(name removed) writes: "... a glance at history shows that the Golden
Rule hasn't made Christians especially peaceful."

V writes:

Yes, this is true and it proves the point that knowledge without
application is useless. It also confirms the 'eightfold path of
Buddhism' that reminds us of the right ways to peace.

Sure tearing others down appeals to ones ego and pride, but so did
torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we need a
different way to find self worth. As you instill seeds of peace within
others you plant the same seeds and water these seeds within you as
well. As you give so you receive. Whenever we take it upon ourselves
to beat down others, we are headed in a direction of destroying peace.
We destroy our own peace as well as others peace. It takes no energy
from me to pass something by and leave it alone in peace. But it takes
my energy as well as my peace to pick something up to destroy it. (No,
I am not talking about picking up a potato to destroy it by eating
it.)

Maybe something useful in the members reviewing "The Affirmations of
Humanism: A Statement of Principles"


* We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

* We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to
explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature
for salvation.

* We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute
to the betterment of human life.

* We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is
the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian
elites and repressive majorities.

* We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
state.

* We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of
resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

* We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and
with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

* We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so
that they will be able to help themselves.

* We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of
humanity.

* We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other
species.

* We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our
creative talents to their fullest.
* We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

* We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to
fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to
exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and
informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

* We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity,
honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to
critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we
discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

* We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We
want to nourish reason and compassion.

* We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

* We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still
to be made in the cosmos.

* We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to
novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

* We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of
despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal
significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

* We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than
despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance,
joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love
instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of
ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

* We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that
we are capable of as human beings.

Council for Secular Humanism


The 'informal creed' of atheism also supports these values for the
dogmatic skeptic that is attached to asterism under all costs and
discounts secular humanism as well.

An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes
that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth
for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he
must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life,
to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a
knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will
help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow
man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital
should be built instead of a church.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer
said.

An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a
god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our
own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the
time is now."

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/


Take care,


V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2