Let us talk about God or Goddess ;-)

[_Hoops]

1. The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past.

2.The universe just jumped into existence from nothing.

3.The universe was caused to exist by something outside it.

.

Didn't BY adhere to #1?

[_truth dancer]

Hey Jas,

Are you only interested in what you think might work for you or what others really think and feel?

You are right, sorry about that. I really am interested in what people think even if it doesn't work for me. My bad. :-(

For example you close down the "look at the world" as a reason to believe in a higher power because that does not work for you.

I didn't mean a "higher power." I think this is completely different than a God/human being up in space directing or interacting or creating this specific world as it is.

Having said this, the, "look at the world," idea could just as well prove a really horrific, evil, nasty guy or gal... I mean, look at the world. There is a lot of icky (smile) stuff along with the beauty right? :-) Heterotrophy is not exactly lovely, natural disasters are not what I would call wonderful, you get where I am with this?

While I do find this world and this universe beyond my comprehension and often just sit in wonder and awe, almost in a state of disbelief; it is as if I cannot take it all in, I find myself also looking at the cruelty that exists and am equally distraught.

Well first of your "look at the world" is a tremendous simplification of why I, or many others may look at the intricacies of the creation we live as potential evidence for a creators hand.

Why a creator anymore than numerous creators, or an essence, or aliens; or if one goes with a creator, why go with a particular God? Why not a, "first cause," or the Great Spirit, or a divine energy, or something along these lines.

I just don't see the jump from, an amazing world to, we must have a creator who is a guy like us, (and looks like a human being in the year 2000), in space creating it all.

And it goes very deep and there are many reasons why I think that may be a very good evidence that speaks at least to me, that there could be a God type entity.

What does this, "god type entity," look like to you? I really am interested Jason. :-)

But again, you don't seem interested in talking about such thing if YOU don't find it compelling

Again, sorry about that. Please accept my apology.

~td~

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

1. The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past.

2.The universe just jumped into existence from nothing.

3.The universe was caused to exist by something outside it.

.

Didn't BY adhere to #1?

It wouldn't surprise me if he did. BY "believed" in a lot of things. :)

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Since that kind of societal cooperation is not necessary anymore for survival, then can we assume that you are in favor of discarding all those pesky moral obligations that came with religioun?

Hoops,

Morality does not need religion and religion is not the source of moral principles or happiness. Humans discovered long, long ago that following certain rules makes life more productive, happy, peaceful, and pleasurable. Morality derives from human nature, not divine guidance.

Indeed, evolutionary biologists/geneticist have even discovered the genethat is responsible for altruistic behavior. It makes evolutionary sense that people are genetically programmed to be altruistic to each other because by being helpful, co-operative and altruistic to one another our genes have a much better chance of survival.

One could make a very persuasive argument that religion, far from being the source of morality, has been the source for more bloodshed, oppression and violence than almost any other single thing in human history.

Also, wouldn’t you agree that if one wishes to live a virtuous and happy life, it's better to do so because they want to rather than the fear of eternal punishment? Unlike a theist, an atheist knows that one life is all he has, and will try to live each day to the fullest. Further, an atheist will also tell you that if there is a God, then they will be rewarded and go to heaven for living a good honest life.

Hoops, even though you didn't ask, I am still LDS.

[_Hoops]

Even if I grant that the article you've cited is completely correct, and it is hardly decisive in its claim, you've still a lot of explaining to do.

Morality does not need religion

No, it doesn't. I'm not using religion as the source of morality, you are. Morality MUST come from from outside us. You still have to address the fact that we have attending feelings and conflicts with every moral act. Why do you help that little old lady across the street? There is no evolutionary need for you to do so, but still you do. Putting yourself in danger from getting run over by a truck (not mine, I'll try and miss the lady at least). Again, since we don't need that kind of communal group-think to survive anymore, then these moral values sprung from ourselves are unnecessary.

and religion is not the source of moral principles or happiness. Humans discovered long, long ago that following certain rules makes life more productive, happy, peaceful, and pleasurable.

Evidence for this claim? This claim is replete with inconsistencies. You've made an objective moral claim in just this sentence. I won't get into them yet, just cite for me the evidence you have for this claim.

One could make a very persuasive argument that religion, far from being the source of morality, has been the source for more bloodshed, oppression and violence than almost any other single thing in human history.

This is simply wrong and simplistic to boot.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I'm not using religion as the source of morality, you are.

Please read my comment again. I am stating that morality has a genetic component and existed long before religion. I never stated that religion is the source of morality. Quite the opposite. Religion has been the source of much suffering, bloodshed, violence and unspeakable acts.

Morality MUST come from from outside us.

Why must morality come outside of us? Indeed, geneticists have shown that morality actually has a genetic compenent and comes from inside us.

You still have to address the fact that we have attending feelings and conflicts with every moral act. Why do you help that little old lady across the street? There is no evolutionary need for you to do so, but still you do. Putting yourself in danger from getting run over by a truck (not mine, I'll try and miss the lady at least).

There is not only an evolutionary reason for helping the lady across the street, but there is a genetic reason also. We are genetically wired to be altruistic. In an evolutionary perspective, if I render help to that lady she or her offspring will do the same for me and my offspring. It makes genetic sense and is hardwired into our physical make-up.

Again, since we don't need that kind of communal group-think to survive anymore, then these moral values sprung from ourselves are unnecessary.

Moral values are just as important today as they were for our survival hundreds of thousands of years ago. People (and their genes) have a better chance of survival if people are altruistic. Altruism still serves the same genetic purpose today as it did long, long ago. I would also disagree that communal group-think is not necessary for survival in today's world. Just try to go against communal group-think in your profession, culture, religion, family, etc. and see how far that gets you in life.

One could make a very persuasive argument that religion, far from being the source of morality, has been the source for more bloodshed, oppression and violence than almost any other single thing in human history.

This is simply wrong and simplistic to boot.

Why is this wrong? I could make a very persuasive argument for the above. Indeed, many respected politicians, philosophers, historians, theologians, political scientist already have made this argument over and over.

P.S.
I will try to read and respond to your answers to the above this evening. Unfortunately, I have to take my kids to see "Mr. Popper's Penguins". I know it's getting terrible reviews and it will be pure torture for me. Who knows, maybe if I take them to this crappy movie they might take me to a movie that I want to see when I get old. :)

[_Valorius]

My two bits.
I believe God is not a Being like other beings are.
I believe God i some kind - "transcendent" would work here, since the "usual kind" is excluded - of actualizing process. Or better put, a fully actualized Process, which has on-going actualization. Sorry for the ambiguity; I have to live with it all the time, since it is my belief.

My reasons are purely rational. I'd like to say "logical", but I suspect someone able to manage formal logic would pick it to pieces with no difficulty. So, as I said, "rational". I accept Thomas Aquinas arguments, most of them, and Anselm's. By Anselm's, I do not mean the easily targeted version, but the full elaboration, seen not from the view of those who can not truly conceive of what he says is conceivable, but from the view of those who truly do conceive of what he says is conceivable. (If you don't believe it, then you have not conceived it, because the fact of it is part of the conception of it, according to Anselm.) - And I won't argue this, because it gets long-winded and boring (to me). It's just my Statement of Belief. Sort of.

I have been told that God has personality. I do believe God has something akin to personality, I could accept that. But I do not believe God has anything closely resembling human personality. If She did, She would have preferred to create (process?) a world without emotional suffering. No, that's not right. I mean a world without emotional suffering that seems sometimes utterly unable to be relieved. (Maybe it's relieved in the next life; that might make it okay. I do believe "things balance out".) Physical suffering really isn't a big deal, in the cosmic scheme of things. But emotional suffering seems to have the greater power to distort, abuse, endure, affect, and influence the world.

I don't believe God answers prayers. Some people say She does, so maybe She does. If so, it is in a mysterious and unpredictable way.

I don't believe God judges. I believe we judge ourselves. In the next life, we can't lie. (My belief, I don't wish to explain, Swedenborg might cover it.)

I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, just One Place with lots of options.

For reasons I won't go into, at least not yet, I prefer Female Manifestations of God: Kwan Yin, Swarasoti, even Inanna. That is a more real God (for me), although I recognize the Masculinity aspect of God, too. And respect it, and talk to Him. People who pray to the Virgin Mary, I think they are praying to the same thing as people who pray to Kwan Yin, a female manifestation of the Supreme Unmanifestable Goddess.

I also believe I can talk to my Ancestors in Spirit World. That is very important. It is very important to acknowledge them, remember them, respect them, thank them, and teach about them. People who ignore their Anestors, I think they have a much harder time in Spirit World.

[_honorentheos]

Didn't BY adhere to #1?

It wouldn't surprise me if he did. BY "believed" in a lot of things. :)

I'd be terribly surprised if most early Mormon's didn't if they had any kind of cosmilogical view at all. Just like everyone else at that time. Belief in a steady-state universe of some form was the norm for a long time up until not very long ago. I remember taking a "fun" science quiz (meaning it wasn't graded, it was just for class entertainment) in the mid-80's that asked about the big bang. My teacher was both surprised I got the answer right (big fan of Nova on PBS as a kid) but also that I agreed with the idea. I think the idea didn't really gain acceptance until Penzias and Wilson's measurement of the cosmic background radiation in the '60's.

[_honorentheos]

TD -

When asked if I am an atheist, I usually answer, "regarding what?" While I don't believe the evidence we have supports the tradition views of any God or other deity, I do hold out the possibility that something "godlike" exists.

While there is much that Hoops said I won't agree with I do agree whole-heartedly with hoop's point that love is evidence of this god, whatever that may mean. Before anyone reads too much into it, I mean basically that I believe we all have the capacity to be something more than our base nature would predict. And somewhere in there, and in ourselves, I think we can find access to this divine "thing" whether it exists outside of us or not. I don't worship this idea, but I try to live by it as best I can.

[_Morley]

........One could make a very persuasive argument that religion, far from being the source of morality, has been the source for more bloodshed, oppression and violence than almost any other single thing in human history. ...........

My underlining.

Weighing in, I don't agree with this statement, Wang. If you said that "religion has been the excuse for more bloodshed, oppression and violence," then I might find merit.