Lucid Dreamers and God

Lucid Dreamers and God

I'm curious about the responses I'm going to get here. Cast your vote and feel free to elaborate. Post significant excerpts from recorded lucid dreams if you like! Feel free also to express your opinions just as I evince my Weltanschauung here (which is part of something I have posted elsewhere):

There is no God. The one you read about in ancient scriptures is man-made. People can protest all they like about my bold statement and even add that I can’t disprove God. But the onus is on the believer to prove or demonstrate the veracity of what he claims to believe in. Any Joe can claim flying pigs exist. Likewise, the belief that a supernatural being wants his followers to wage a holy war against infidels should be ridiculed. Religion, it seems, is a shogunate with a profound bogus licence and no justification for its existence apart from the excuse of its effectiveness as a tool to control and perilously manipulate minds.

This argument, of course, does not make its sermons true. Some religious people have asked me how can I be good without God. Well, I tell them that goodness should nobly come from the individual. One should not have to fear a god or crave heavenly reward in order to be good. In “Age of Reason,” Thomas Paine eloquently indicates how immoral it is to lie to yourself about an idea that if believed can bring comfort and in the minds of some it is an excuse for personal gain and the perpetration of crime. The book underlines how taboo it is to have an open discussion about religion. Have we learnt nothing since then when we tolerate a religion that is used as an excuse to kill non-believers in this day and age? Didn’t 9/11 make enough of an impact in our modern times? Or 7/7? Or the public murder of Lee Rigby while his killers chanted, “God is great!” What about the massacre of innocent civilians at a Kenyan shopping centre by the Islamist group Al-Shabaab? Men, women, and children were murdered for not being Muslim, for being unable to recite from the Quran, or for not knowing the name of prophet Muhammad’s mother. (If you don’t know, it’s Aminah bint Wahb - it could save your life!)

Meanwhile, in Derby, England, multicultural tensions arose as Muslim school Al-Madinah came under investigation for forcing non-Muslim female staff to wear the hijab, for replacing lessons with prayers (causing the children’s education to suffer as a result), and for enforcing the segregation of boys and girls. And it didn’t stop there as boys were granted privileges over girls and the word “pig” was banned. Where is equality and freedom of expression? By contrast, mathematician Bertrand Russell did not need God, nor the belief in free will, to express his pacifism during the Great War. Professor A. C. Grayling, as an atheist, can still promote a kind of secular humanism that includes moral precepts far superior to God’s Ten Commandments and religion’s garbled amorality. The structure of this world speaks for itself as a reflection of the absence of an intelligent, almighty architect.

The old Epicurean reasoning exposes the fact that no theodicy in the world can vindicate a good god in the face of evil. The concept of God, as a belief, has proved to be one of the hardest to let go of. But one only needs to assess the character of God in the world’s monotheisms to realise how improbable and incompatible it is with what happens in reality. As I said before, the evolution of the universe is so slow and careless that the Almighty would also have to be lazy and not much of an architect. Scientists can conceive of a far better universe and yet what we get in terms of its conditions is below slum. Today, DNA sequencing paints a mediocre picture of our species. Nature has the potential to stumble upon superhumans and geniuses, far better than the ones we’ve had, exceeding at everything - yet, what we get so far is mediocre Homo Sapiens. Poor quality is what we see which further evidences the accumulation of cosmic junk.

Does this godlessness justify misbehaviour and cause good people to want to be bad? Of course not. The writer and humorist Mark Twain, who happened to be an intelligent and witty gentlemen fond of science and technology, was all for social equality and mingled with rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment and atheists who wanted to abolish the slave trade (at the time) because it violated the rights of man. Twain once said: “It isn’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” I don’t know if the laws of man, if open to refinement, are enough to deal with the wicked, unscrupulous, and inhumane, but, we are certainly better off without the religious façade. When it comes to laws in a secular society, you are given the benefit of the doubt until you display your misdemeanour and face the consequences. With religion, you are deemed bad without its tenets even if you are innocent, and must seek salvation or face damnation (and the concept of eternity often goes with this). And although punishment is part of government legislation, it is not as prominent, or as emphasised, as in religion. Secular laws will not say, “You will burn in hell for all time,” or, “May God have mercy on your soul,” or “You will be reborn to pay your karmic debt.”

Personally, I think punishment is not justified when humans don’t really possess free will. But since we are not as advanced in genetics as one would hope to be in order to eradicate unwanted behavioural urges, we’ll just have to make do with what we currently have. The point is, while religion (mostly) claims to know that we have souls with free will and therefore deserving of punishment, science opens the door to new possibilities. Imagine a future where humans are genetically modified to be reasonable and more empathetic to the point where crime and punishment are things of the past. Imagine a future generation looking at the annals of mankind and regarding our current civilisation as barbaric in its methods. Imagine revenge and punishment being considered completely immoral. In our age we are yet to see the first step towards such goal. The first step would perhaps be the establishment of an enlightened utopia of secular humanism. A society that adopted the teachings of the Enlightenment movement. This is yet to happen. Instead, what we see so far in the world is leaders who either try to accommodate everyone in the hope of winning votes, or you get despotism.

Buddhism may have its valid philosophical points but it isn’t impervious to criticism. I dislike the word “karma.” It doesn’t exist in the way that is implied in Buddhism and popular mysticism. The idea of it almost alludes to a judgemental agent behind the course of events, people’s actions and their intentions. If a soldier kills the enemy’s child, either accidentally or purposefully, it does not mean that later something similar will happen to his, or that something bad will happen to him which relates to that particular misdeed for that matter. There is cause and effect in the Newtonian sense but that does not compare with the cockeyed religious idea. Buddhism, to me, becomes a sordid affair when it potentially creates a legion of zombies, or zombie wannabes. Like other religions, it starts off with the assumption that human beings are naturally bad and need salvation. It conveys this in a subtle way by romanticising the idea: We suffer with our egos but the “Buddha nature” can radiate from within us if we allow it to. That is our true nature, they say, therefore we live in a false, delusional state. The ego is something that deserves eradication and the goal has to be Buddha nature. I disagree. You make up your own goals and do what you like. A man trying to convince another that this one is not truly happy is never a good sign.

Meditation can be a beneficial tool to some (and indeed it can reduce stress) and it is true that the less we look at the world based on our likes and dislikes, the happier we’ll be, but some take this great philosophy to extremes. It should be used as a tool when necessary (and if the individual wishes to do so) and I’ll add that there is no lord Mara shackling you to rebirth and no punishment or karmic debt. And while you don’t have to be religious to practice meditation, usually, those who pursue it have a desire to improve themselves (clearly a self-involved or egocentric move) and this is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but it stinks when it is claimed to be done altruistically. One must also be careful in claiming that meditation alone is responsible for profound behavioural changes whilst omitting external matters or even the enticement of a delusion of enlightenment. How much of the meditator’s new behaviour is a façade? Does it truly come naturally or are they constantly, and in some cases unsuspectingly, conscientious? Subjectively, the person may feel selfless, more compassionate, and feel oneself to have better overall conduct, but, in reality, he may come across as arrogant or holier-than-thou to others. He may even feel that the negative feedback from others stems from envy as he regards himself to be closer to enlightenment, nirvana, or even as a holy man.

Nothing is (and I really dislike this word) “holy.” I’d rather say “wholly” or “complete,” but, even such words, despite being somewhat free of religious connotations, must be carefully applied. They imply a limit that one cannot go beyond and this alone is a recipe for disaster as people can have bad judgements about what is good, bad, sufficient or insufficient. In our mediocre mammalian condition we are not in a position to make such tall claims. Buddhism is another religion that has been exploited in a number of ways and gives certain narcissistic individuals the excuse to exercise their pharisaism. It has its extremists and its moderates and has also been used as an excuse for warfare. It is hypocritical to say Islamic moderation insidiously provides fertile ground for dangerous fanaticism whilst holding a different stance on Buddhism. What might be attractive now may not be so later. This is particularly true about Buddhism once we notice how its practice has evolved to include esoteric beliefs and schismatic sects. There is some truth in Buddhist philosophy, in particular when it teaches us that desire creates attachment and this leads to suffering when loss is experienced. But this should be counterbalanced with a little Epicureanism in order to preserve our humanity and still make the most of being alive.

In a nutshell, you can live according to the following philosophy and not be a Buddhist: Don’t have high expectations but if the good stuff presents itself, take it! And enjoy it! As far as we know, we only live once. So, live! Meditation is a tool with which individuals may acquire different perspectives if they wish to explore and perhaps expand their minds. The transcendental part of meditation is a bit misguided, or the adjective is a bit of a misnomer. You are really only accessing certain perspectives which are already innate or within your potential, even though some experiences may appear to be transcendental. The illusion of transcendence is created by the novelty of such experiences coming to the fore. Then, the aftermath brings excitement which prompts the meditator to think highly of the encountered mental state. As we cherish the insights we may assign great importance to them, often undeservedly, as the mind will further adorn the memory of the experience for the sake of beauty.

Some interpret their meditative states in such a way as to think of them as profound revelations of objective reality or that there is objectively more to life than what materialism proposes. Such types allow all manner of delusional thinking to overwhelm them as they believe that their apparent epiphanies somehow support or make room for their fanciful or biased misinterpretations. We are used to having all the lights on in our (mental) home, but, all of a sudden, and for the first time (or rarely), we only have one of them on. This causes us to really pay attention to the clarity as the rest has suddenly disappeared into obscurity. Rene Descartes got it wrong when he said: “I think, therefore I am.” What he really should have said is this: “I think I am.” And that’s the problem, isn’t it? The minute our evolution stumbled upon a gestalt of higher-order intentionalities and language, the illusion inevitably arose and was strengthened overtime. Hence, the awareness of self concept. As counterintuitive as this sounds, we are self-aware animate objects (most of the time). Maybe I’m being too pedantic about Descartes’ axiom but I would like to be precise and clear about the fact that I am referring to our thinking ability in the context of semantics. I exclude the word “therefore” to rule out his conclusive dualism and to make the following point: The self or self-awareness may have arisen as an illusion when we inevitably stumbled upon the thought, “I am.”

In a mental system that was growing complex and by the bye generating new concepts against old ones, conceiving not only synonyms but antonyms too, the developing imagination and the sense required for survival inevitably led to a sense of self because the concept can simply be formulated. Hence, the birth of such user illusion and the reinforcement of consciousness. So, literally, “I think I am.” In this phrase, the first “I” identifies with the physical body, and, therefore, refers to the primacy of matter; the second “I” identifies with the sense of self which is illusory and an epiphenomenon.

This brings me back to the argument against the existence of God. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He could make us all-knowing like Him in a fraction of a second. Yet, He apparently sends us to the slow and arduous school of earth realm. (Already, the Christian Tribulation concept - a period of hardship living to strengthen the soul prior to Christ’s return - appears ludicrous.) Some of us have relatively short lives. Stillborns don’t even make it to the world outside the womb and thus have no time to learn. If one assumes their premature death is a learning process in itself one should know that they are not even conscious for this nor would they have the capability of comprehending their situation if they could. Scientists tell us that, in “The Matrix,” the scene where Neo instantly downloads Kung Fu knowledge is possible in principle, though a lot of work needs to be done. Likewise, the “Total Recall” scenario, where memories, fantasies, and identities can be embedded in your brain. Science has the potential to make fundamental changes in individuals instantly. A skilled hypnotist can potentially put you in a trance and temporarily make you forget who you are. (All with the power of suggestion alone.) And yet, the Almighty is powerless to download supreme wisdom into your meagre soul.

Moreover, in His chauvinistic and bellicose nature, He is unable to prevent us from having certain thoughts He deems criminal (according to scripture). How can an all-merciful god be so judgemental to his “children” when these never even had a choice in how they are made, how they are made to feel (remember, He is omnipresent), and what happens upon them? He can’t even be compared to us earthly parents when we punish our children for their infractions. We are not omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. In “Spiderman” the following axiom was uttered: “With great power comes great responsibility.” God, who should be responsible for everything, appears to be capricious and evasive. He is so infinitely good and merciful (using sarcasm in case the reader misses it) that He’d rather smite His delinquents than magically fix them out of the kindness of His divine heart. It seems He is absolutely powerless (!), or unwilling, to make His bad seeds see the light. Instead, second-hand revelations are spread through public figures who incite war, hatred, and appear destined to be exalted on unconfirmed merit.

...

It won't start a fight if we maintain decency and consider every individual's worldview objectively. Don't worry, nesgirl, we won't be insulting anyone - but we may get them to ask themselves whether they are being accurate in what they believe - and this is fine. Ultimately, we can't really force anyone to walk through the proverbial door. As Morpheus says in The Matrix: "I can only show you the door..." ;)

Every subject should be open to discussion, revision, and criticism. Religion is no different. Freedom of speech should include all forms of expression and ideas. Some are free to expound religious beliefs and ideologies. And others should be equally free to criticise such ideas especially if they are perceived to be bad. Everything is open to debate. Religion is even open to scientific scrutiny as we attempt to determine its origins and evolution. :ugeek:

The fact that the topic of religion was banned in your multimedia class reeks of fear and submission to religious fanaticism and the strange creed that religiosity is immune to criticism. Such cowardly move equates with succumbing to the threat of antisocial behaviour and imposing a gagging order in a society that should be first and foremost free. It is as though a dictatorship has been established after the fact whereupon critics and irreligionists alike are forced to remain silent while religious dogma is aired like it should have priority above everything else. It is also an insult to secularists and atheists who won't even be considered for the Oval Office unless they profess a religious belief. Did you know that poppies honouring British soldiers were nearly banned in the UK after Lee Rigby was murdered by two Islamists? Do you think the soldiers who risk their lives battling terrorists should be deprived of a great reception, honour and celebration on their return out of fear that some religious lunatic will do something? Thankfully enough the public stuck together on that one. :x

And if you ask me about what I would do if the school where my kids go to suddenly forced them to subscribe to a monotheism such as Islam or else they go to hell, I would gladly protest and willingly die in the process if I had to. I would also be distraught with grief if the government decreed the banning of educational books like George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in schools because some of the characters in the allegory are pigs - an animal regarded as devilish and impure in Islam, and the pronunciation of its name widely deemed to be haram. If nobody does anything, children will continue to be brainwashed and won't be allowed to think for themselves. :!:

Imagine a world where Nazism wasn't open to discussion because any criticism of it would further induce the decimation of Jewish sympathisers. Imagine a parallel universe where WWII never took place and the Third Reich spread throughout the world because people chose not to challenge Hitler and the adherents of his philosophy. Today, ISIS is becoming technologically more powerful and more influential to the young while those of us who oppose their radical brand of Islam are all considered to be infidels deserving of death and eternal hell fire. Is this what we want or do we want to send out a message to these people that their beliefs are dangerous and their recipe for a way of life is detrimental to mankind? :idea:

All it takes is for some of us to admit that we are wrong in the face of evidence and let go of an irrational ego. Your multimedia class should have sent out a message that violence and other crimes against humanity are unacceptable and that criticism is important for our intellectual growth. They should also append that there is no reason for anyone to be offended as what is often criticised during noble discourses are ideologies and not the people themselves. People are quite welcome to believe in God and be religious in the privacy of their own homes. They are free to do this and ignore scientific truths that render their beliefs untenable. They are welcome to be happy believing in what they do as long as they don't force the tenets of their religion onto others, quit looking down on unbelievers, and give up their proselytism in the process. And it should also be said that the biggest mistake people make is to blindly identify themselves with ideologies that, when shown to be wrong, cause deep offence. :(

Open-mindedness does not equate with faith or a sympathy for it. Open-mindedness is allowing yourself to grow and accept that what you think you know is always open to revision. Religious dogma is the antithesis of that and it is my right to make this observation whether people like it or not. Perhaps they should question the origins of their discomfort. If I worried about offending every single person on the planet every time I opened my mouth I wouldn't bother opening it at all, and, if everyone followed this erroneous principle, nobody would ever learn anything and communication would regress. :|

Conversely, people who have something to say here are free to espouse a different approach to mine and even voice their religious views in conjunction with lucid dream reports. (I have none regarding God.) I might have gone out on a limb explaining why I have not tried to communicate with God in a lucid dream and elaborating on my atheistic justifications, but you (everybody) don't have to do the same. You may be curious and agnostic. You might be an atheist and still be curious about what sort of experience an attempt to meet with a lucid dream deity could yield. You might be a Christian and believe that communication with God is possible via dreaming. It's absolutely fine. Express yourself here in the name of fun and implicative statistics. 8-)

Funny how nesgirl started out by saying they didn't want to talk about it, and yet look what happened... ;) If anyone has an objection with this topic, simply ignore it and don't reply

So far, looking at the poll, I am the only one who has done this Lucid Dream Challenge. I did it twice: January 2013, and again last night, July 18, 2014. I'll tell two lucid dreams and nothing more. It's just for objective scientific reasons, and consider it Exhibit A and Exhibit B. (Of course reading them will cause others to label me, but I'm above that. I'm just a child of the Universe who likes to explore, and I don't care about groups, or which one I am suppose to be in.)

(This one may sound familiar, Summerlander, from a year and a half ago. I remember talking about it in another thread.) Jan. 3, 2013.

After a few other images I was finally in a solid 3D environment again. I was in an urban street devoid of people and saw trash and old beat up furniture littered everywhere. There was a wide, flat rock almost like a table and he said God was in there. He dove right in and disappeared. I wanted to follow. I got on it and tried to dive in, but it was solid rock. I thought, how did that guy do it? He seemed to do it in one single motion like diving into a swimming pool. So I did that too without hesitation, without worrying if it was solid, and it worked! I was now 'inside'.

I saw an analogue clock and it was 8:15 and started to try and interpret other numbers and texts I saw posted on the wall, but then I remembered what I was there for and walked away to go find 'God'. I felt like I was making this God guy wait.

I entered a large room with a high ceiling, and large bright windows to the left. There were two people sitting in comfortable, cushioned chairs with armrests. One of them I instinctively knew was 'superior in rank' to the other and he was the 'God' I was looking for. He reminded me of an old friend of mine who was Indian, in his twenties.

July 18, 2014 I was already lucid for a while, and it faded, but I remained relaxed and (long story short) eventually got back into a vivid lucid dream again. I was in a house, but none I recognized, and immediately remembered this LD goal. I walked around, keeping the brand new dream scene stable, and saw some steps leading to the floor above. The bottom step was missing so I had to lift my leg high to get on the spiral staircase, and I noticed it was made of wood, and the bolts holding it all together were corroded with white/green deposits built up on it. Much like an old car-battery gets a build-up on the terminals. As I climbed the steps I felt like I should get as high up as I could before calling out for God just like I did in my last dream when I attempted it. (Which is actually a false memory, because I never did that. Get those all the time!)

The whole time I was doing this, I heard very rhythmic breathing sounds, not coming from any direction but like it was coming from everywhere. On the second floor of the mix-matched, twisted, dream house, I called out, "God?" When I said it, it was barely audible, being drowned out by the heavy breathing. I realized, that the breathing I was hearing was my own physical body and I was hearing it intrude on the dream from 'the real world'. I called out again, and I was starting to hear my voice louder now as I focused more on the dream instead of 'that outside real world'. (That's how it feels when in a lucid dream for me). I called out again, "Are you there? I need some help!"

Then suddenly from around a corner a person showed up. He was short and heavyset, wearing a black, sleeveless muscle shirt, and had red hair and was clean shaven. Not an attractive guy, a little geeky, but cool, and I got the feeling he was into biker culture.

Me: "Are you God?" DC: "I am your God." Me: I placed my hand on his shoulder. "Do you have a name, or is it just God?" (I don't remember a response). Me: "I need help growing a tail."

(Growing a tail was what I was trying to do earlier in the lucid dream, and got the idea from another topic, by Jacob46719)

Then to my disappointment, just as it was getting good, I started to hear real life noises again and it collapsed, faded, and I woke up. At first I was upset, but then realized, it was already a light lucid dream since I was hearing my breathing (which is another new thing for me!). It was the end of a lucid dream I had kept prolonging for a while, so it was already an accomplishment to even have it in the first place.

I can see some similarities, but I will let others ponder it first.

Deleted

@ nesgirl:

There is no law that prohibits people from discussing their privates or even their sex life. If the more prudish crowd don't want to hear it, or see it, they should avert their eyes and ears. There are also places where people can go commando if they so wish - and the prudes are free to stay away. The point I'm making is that both extroverts and introverts have (or should have) the freedom to express themselves. In an ideal world, different parties tolerate one another, without attacks, provided that there is a right time and a right place to do what they do. There should only be intervention when we observe that an ideology or a way of life can be detrimental to human beings. For instance, a cult that recommends sustained sleep deprivation to its followers has a lot of answering to do. Science has established that sleep deprivation can be noxious - one of the many examples of how science can and has helped us to establish an improved set of human values and it can provide us with a better brand of morality than religion, too, if morality is derived from facts about what makes conscious creatures fairly happy and fulfilled. (If anyone is interested in this topic, I recommend the Sam Harris book I've just finished reading, "The Moral Landscape.") :geek:

When it comes to religion, for a lot of people, there is never a right time or a right place for criticism. Equally, even if secularists bend over backwards for the sake of keeping the peace, you will find that the pious are hell-bent on imposing their dogmas on unbelievers in a bid to "save" them. Hence the reason why the business of proselytism continues. :roll:

I share your sentiments about religious leaders and cult chieftains, by the way. I was raised a Catholic and sent to a school run by nuns who subjugated children on a daily basis. I believe I was no younger than seven when I experienced a profound moment of agnosticism. Allow me to explain how this came about: I witnessed a couple of nuns urging a boy to persuade his parents to get him baptised otherwise he would burn in hell. Then, after having demonised him, the "women of God" apathetically walked off leaving a perplexed and melancholic child behind. Subsequently, the other kids only made matters worse by reinforcing the supposed seriousness of the young pariah's pseudo-predicament by exclaiming, "You're going to burn in hell!" :shock:

The boy burst into tears, and, at that moment, I felt that there was something deeply wrong about what had unfolded. He was not guilty of anything. I could see the sadness in his eyes as he was being ostracised and I did not think it was fair. Surely God, in His all-loving and understanding nature, could make an exception of the young pariah's case and change His mind about the penalty of eternal damnation. What didn't occur to me at the time, but then played on my mind later, was God's absence as the boy was being threatened with hell. God had also been absent in those instances of racial abuse from the nuns when they dealt with interned black girls. I can only imagine the repercussions of such abuse and how it could affect or mould anyone to become readily callous and suspicious of everyone. :cry:

In my case, I was only lambasted a few times, but, coupled with what I had seen, it was enough to push me towards agnosticism. Eventually, over the years, as my interest in science and the nature of the world deepened, the more I explored the less agnostic I became - landing me in de facto atheism. :|

@ Hagart:

In the first lucid dream (Jan 3, 2013) you mention having trouble catching up with an adolescent dream character. I can't tell you the number of times I've experienced this difficulty but I've noticed that a good dose of confidence suffices to surmount it. The key is to avoid doubt (the trouble is when doubt arises in our minds willy-nilly in a lucid dream - it's a tricky affair!) :twisted:

The emergence of the flat rock in your mental world makes me wonder if it's part of a mnemonic Biblical schema perhaps stemming from a childhood exposure to the Book of Genesis - namely the story of Abraham and his son who is nearly slain on a stony altar on God's orders. The god in your lucid dream reminded you of your Indian friend, which brings me to ask you whether he was religious or exuded an air of religiosity. Finally, on this particular lucid dream, I'd like to point out that it's also a good example of an out-of-body experience. You experienced the sensation that your physical body was lying asleep far away from where you (the self) was. You perceived yourself to be somewhere else whilst clearly remembering your sleeping body. (In reasonable terms, this is the perfect definition of the OOBE.) 8-)

Now, the second lucid dream (July 18, 2014): I find the spiral staircase interesting as it reminds me of the Fibonacci sequence - which is sometimes believed to be God's signature in His design of the universe. On a different note, false memory whilst lucid dreaming can be common with me, too. And what is your take on the breathing that was firstly all-pervading and subsequently emanating from you? Symbolically meaning you are the living, breathing god of your mind before projecting ("outwardly") a weird representation of such in the form of a nerdy DC, perhaps? :mrgreen:

Summerlander, I might post a more detailed reply (there are so many things you say that I totally agree with, even though I am not an atheist anymore), but I just had to post this immediately:

I was raised a Catholic and sent to a school run by nuns who subjugated children on a daily basis. I believe I was no younger than seven when I experienced a profound moment of agnosticism. ... landing me in de facto atheism.

I heard someone say recently (though I can't remember who right now), that Catholic schools are the best atheist factories. :D

I wasn't raised Catholic, but my husband was, and he had the same experience as you did: he was told his very best friend, who was a Jewish boy, would burn in Hell. He was very young, but there and then he decided he wanted nothing to do with the church.

Also, how many times during my atheist years have I been asked the exact same question you were: how can I be a good person if I am an atheist? Because being good makes me feel good, that's why. I am not trying to be a good person because I am afraid of divine punishment, I am good because if I hurt another person, I feel awful. I was always shocked that people could not grasp this concept.

Wow! What a gem of a reply and you certainly got me captivated! :o

Summerlander, I might post a more detailed reply (there are so many things you say that I totally agree with, even though I am not an atheist anymore), but I just had to post this immediately:

Please do reply in detail if you get a chance, you are very welcome! It's hard for a reasonable person to disagree with most of what I said, and I fear that there are good people blinded by faith who would because they want the fantasies they've been sold to be true.

I'm also curious about how you came to abandon your atheism. Have you found a good reason to be a Deist - or even a pantheist? Perhaps like the strange old man in Scott Adams's "God's Debris" (where a particular brand of pantheism is strangely compelling). I open-mindedly look forward to your reply! You got my full attention there. :)

I heard someone say recently (though I can't remember who right now), that Catholic schools are the best atheist factories.

This rings familiar. I think I came across this person, too, but I can't remember who it was either. It seems like a fair comment to make. I mean, who would have thought that a little boy from the English Church would grow up to become a Darwinist, a great scientist, and one of the most famous atheistic voices (having authored a book called "The God Delusion") in the world today. His name is Richard Dawkins. 8-)

I wasn't raised Catholic, but my husband was, and he had the same experience as you did: he was told his very best friend, who was a Jewish boy, would burn in Hell. He was very young, but there and then he decided he wanted nothing to do with the church.

What a coincidence! Having left the Church, is your husband an atheist or agnostic now? (or the same as you - I'm really curious about your current position!) 8-)

I was always shocked that people could not grasp this concept.

Tell me about it. When I come across that sort of response I ask them, "Is it really that hard to see?" :roll:

I'll try to find the time for a detailed reply. Actually, I started the other day, and it became so lengthy that I kind of gave up and erased that start, thinking I would bore the hell out of everyone :roll: . There is so much to say on that topic.

My husband was never an atheist; he used to be an agnostic, and recently it evolved into something more (I hate to put labels on this, it is always misinterpreted). Actually, we have had many heated discussions, me being an atheist and not even seeing the point of discussing God or philosophies, anymore than I would have liked to waste my time discussing Santa Claus, and him being more into philosophical views of the universe (as opposed to me being into a 100% mechanistic/materialist view of the universe).

There are no labels to fit what my views are now (it certainly isn't any organized religion or any belief in a God 'out there') but I'll try to explain as well as I can.

It is one fantasy of mine to have a time machine and go meet my old self two years ago and tell her what I think now, and just watch my/her shocked face!! :D :D Maybe one day in a dream, I'll do just that!

Summerlander wrote: The god in your lucid dream reminded you of your Indian friend, which brings me to ask you whether he was religious or exuded an air of religiosity.

No he wasn't. I looked up to him though, and we would get 'spiritual' at times while testing the effects of Tetrahydrocannabinol on consciousness in High School. (Purely for scientific reasons! ;) )

I was expecting someone I would revere, while I was in a more 'spiritual' state of mind. Expectations sure do have a huge effect on lucid dreams. In both cases, I treated them like a 'dream guide' who would help me, not in waking life, but help me unlock some abilities and powers in the 'dream world', such as going through solid objects, or growing a tail.

So for me, my God, is my 'higher-self' with a ton of knowledge and no ego. "Me" in waking life and in lucid dreams is really just a small piece of my entire self, and I am really just a mental construct, a dream character, generated by The Ego. ( I'm not exactly sure what The Ego is, so I could be wrong, but it feels right saying that).

Whenever people pray, (doesn't matter to whom), I think they are tapping into that same 'higher-self' that sees a bigger picture.

Me: "Are you God?" DC: "I am your God."

That's my view (whatever the heck it is), and it shows in my lucid dreams. I would be interested how a religious lucid dreamer would encounter God. My hypothesis is that we all see what we believe and expect to see.

I plan to try this again one day, but with a different expectation.

Instead of expecting a person to show up, I will consider that God is everywhere and in all things. I wonder what will happen?

If someone stopped spreading fear it could have been shared in a civil manner. It's not going to happen now, you're right.

I thought I was clear. Anyone else agree? 8-)

nesgirl wrote: This is only going to start a fight.

I don't believe in talking about religion in public and never will.

And that is exactly why such harmful and silly beliefs haven't been laughed off the face of the Earth yet.

Here's more on my current views on God. Note that I am not interested in convincing other people I am right, and I do not have any hard evidence for anything I am saying. Most of what follows is purely subjective, it's my own truth. Maybe I am wrong, have a brain tumor, had a stroke, lost my marbles, etc... Everyone can chose to believe whatever they want.

In a nutshell, God is the center of who I am as a conscious being. It is like a fundamental note. I cannot comprehend it with my mind, but I can feel it in my heart. Yet at the same time, I am part of God: so God is at the deepest center of my being, and at the same time my whole being exists within God.

For me, God is infinite in the true sense of the word. The simple idea of a 'God out there', sitting somewhere on a cloud, passing judgment, does not make any sense to me.

For me, God is not just the sum of all existing things, it is also 'infinite consciousness'. That's not really the right wording, but what I am trying to express is that to me God is not just the cold sum of everything in a mechanistic kind of way, but also personal and unconditionally loving to everyone and everything.

So the dream challenge of meeting God in a dream initially did not make sense to me. How could I meet who I am in my heart and whom I exist within? On the other hand, since God is infinite and everything, maybe I could meet a 'projection of my concept of God' that I could talk to in a dream, just like I can meet projections of aspects of my mind in dreams. I am not sure that I'd be interested in this though... Maybe I would be more interested to 'experience' more of God in me, as opposed to experience a reduction of God projected outside of myself.

So how did I come from atheism to this view?

About two years ago, it suddenly occurred to me that I am consciousness having a physical experience, and that my body and mind aren't who I am, but instead are tools I have to experience the world. As this thought crossed my mind, I experienced a 'Ah-ha' moment, a 'lightbulb' moment: OMG, how could I have forgotten this fundamental fact? Nothing had ever rung truer than this realization. I had zero doubt about it.

That was step one. That same evening, while lying in bed, I decided to focus my attention on my awareness, on the part of me that is always there, witnessing everything, beyond thoughts. I had never consciously done that before. I instantly felt a 'reconnection' which is difficult to describe. It was always there, but I had forgotten about it. It was not a reconnection with something 'out there', it was a reconnection with something 'in there', and it had never even occurred to me before that there was anything 'in there'. The image that comes to mind is being stuck in a box for eons, thinking that's all there is and there is no way out and nothing even exists outside of it. And then one day, I think of looking up and see that there is no ceiling, that it always was open, and then I rise up and from this new vantage point, I see that the box I was existing in was limited, and that beyond it's boundaries there is a whole universe I had no idea existed, where things don't look anything like in the box.

First thing I did when I felt this reconnection is cry for help: help me understand who I am and what is real. It quickly occurred to me that what I had reconnected to was a larger part of myself, which I now call my Higher Self. And in the core of this higher self, it became obvious to me that there was the fundamental presence of God. I just know this, but don't ask me why I know this, I just know it.

So as an atheist I believed I was a tiny speck in a huge mechanistic universe, a purely random occurrence, with no meaning. This had in the blink of an eye transformed into realizing that in my core I am God, and thus that I include the whole universe within me, yet at the same time I exist as a physical being within it. Inside-out, upside-down.

The problem is this realization undermined the core foundation of who I previously thought I was and of my previous concept of reality. If I was wrong in something so fundamental, then I could have been wrong in just about everything I used to believe, including all my scientific knowledge (I am a scientist/engineer).

It soon occurred to me though that most of what I knew from Science was still valid. It all was a pretty accurate and reliable description of the physics within the box (the space-time physical universe our bodies exist in). So I did not need to reject what I knew of reality, I needed to expand what I knew beyond it.

To me, science is knowing a lot about the 3D space and time our bodies exist in, because it investigates it with instruments that exist within it, and with bodies and brains that exist within it. Even our minds exist within it, IMO. For instance, we can picture in our minds 3D geometrical shapes, but we can't picture in our minds 4D geometrical shapes. So how can we hope to comprehend higher dimensions with 3D minds and tools, let alone comprehend something infinite like God? Maybe with mathematics. We certainly can model higher dimensions using mathematics.

Now to come back to organized religions, to me at their highest they are attempts to project higher dimensional stuff into our 3D world. The result is approximations and distortions. At their worst, religions are means for the powers in place to control the masses and keep people in fear. One has to keep people thinking they can't think for themselves, the answers are outside of them and only the priests or the sacred texts have them, and they need the church to save them from themselves and tell them how to behave. Sadly, IMO it often does not bring people closer from God, it pushes them further away from it. I would not be surprised if many atheists are closer to God than many fundamentalist religious people...

I often have this picture in my mind to illustrate the above: imagine a 2D universe, like a flat land, in which 2D people exist. Now imagine a 3D cone shape outside of this 2D universe, and imagine that this cone is the God of these people. Depending on their perspective, some people are going to see this cone as a circle, and some people are going to perceive this cone as a triangle. So who is right? Is God a circle, or is God a triangle? I bet the circle-seeing people are going to claim the triangle-seeing people are lying. 'My God is a circle, so if you saw a triangle it wasn't the real God, because the real God is a circle'. And vice-versa. They might even go to war against each other, one side holding a circle flag, and the other side holding a triangle flag. What they fail to realize is that both sides are true: a cone is a circle AND a triangle, yet it is also so much more than those. Now imagine an infinite God being projected in 3D: there are an infinity of ways to perceive it, which might often even seem contradictory, yet they might all be true, yet incomplete.

Karin wrote: In a nutshell, God is the center of who I am as a conscious being. It is like a fundamental note. I cannot comprehend it with my mind, but I can feel it in my heart. Yet at the same time, I am part of God: so God is at the deepest center of my being, and at the same time my whole being exists within God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

Cool link, thanks for sharing, Worldenterer1.

The mention of a theist meeting an atheist reminded me of something that happened to me several years ago:

I was getting my mail at my mailbox, pushing a stroller, when two young men in shirts and ties, riding bicycles, stopped by me with flyers inviting me to their church. I politely thanked them and said I was not interested. They then asked me what church I go to. Without thinking, this came out of my mouth: I do not go to any church, I am an atheist. Their reaction took me by surprise: these guys' faces turned beet-red, their eyes became round saucers, and their jaws dropped. I wasn't sure if they were going to have a heart attack right there. They were clearly shocked and had never encountered an atheist before. Their reaction would have been the same if I had just opened my coat wide and wasn't wearing anything under it.

I actually felt sorry for them and wish I had not used the word 'atheist'. I had not realized until then that some people could feel so offended or shocked by it, as if a prude turns a hotel TV on and finds that it's tuned on a porn channel.

Well written Karin! You know what's harder than arguing for Atheism? Agnosticism. Perhaps we just need to redefine "God". It's more of a concept than an entity.

And great video, Wordenterer1. It's so relevant and couldn't have said it better.

When I was just spewing out words earlier claiming that I am just a made of fabrication in my mind, constructed by my ego and there is a higher-self to tap into, I felt weird saying it. But now I feel more confident in it. I still have no label for my 'religion', and I'll just keep it that way. :D

You need one more choice,

Do you have no need to believe in god and have you so many experiences that if you did you could start many religions and so suspect some of the reasons behind them and why in the past they might have started.

So not a believer Not a disbeliever Happy in my own skin and no need to believe or seek

@ Hagart:

The "higher self" concept was aired a lot in the now extinct Astral Viewers. It's redolent of the New Age movement but certainly nothing like Yahweh for sure. Whatever this concept and feeling is, which appears to root in the psyche, can be interpreted as a sort of subjective "god" by some individuals. (Your stance is cognate with Karin's.)

@ Worldenterer1:

I wholeheartedly agree where humanity's progress is concerned. An open discussion or debate on virtually every subject is a step forward. The darkmatter video was quite relevant to what Karin espouses. Thanks for sharing. :)

@ Karin:

Your view/belief strikes me as an existential derivative of the "Einsteinian religion" but the sense of awe centres mainly upon the mystery of consciousness and a profound admiration for the sense of self. (Correct me if what I gleaned from your latest post is slightly misguided.) The empyrean view that a naked awareness exists anterior to matter (also featuring in Buddhism), as well as posteriorly extant, cannot be backed by the memory of transcendental meditative states.

The reason why the unusual mental state cannot be trusted as evidence is that it may be nothing more than an illusion (or delusion?) caused by the firing of neurons. The physiological mechanism begets the conscious experience which doesn't necessarily reveal a profound truth about the nature of reality - it only shows that the aforementioned experience, which can influence one's beliefs about reality, is possible and may well be a fake epiphany.

But I am not dismissing your hypothesis completely. As a scientist you may be aware of Penrose's quantum mechanical view of consciousness and the recent neuroscientific discovery regarding quantum vibrations. Here is a link which also pertains to dreaming:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14309

By the way, I am yet to see a shred of evidence for the "3D cone" in our "2D" world. ;) Scripture was still written by people who knew less than us about the world and felt the need to fill in their noetic gaps with fantasy and wishful thinking.

I've never done this, and I don't see the point. If you do try to communicate and actually receive a response, who's to say it's not just a dream?

And it is just a dream. And I don't see much point either. But some materialistic atheists might still be curious to see what happens when one calls out for God in a lucid dream. How would your mind tend to respond is the real question for atheists. It's okay for secular people to seek numinous experiences.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: And it is just a dream. And I don't see much point either. But some materialistic atheists might still be curious to see what happens when one calls out for God in a lucid dream. How would your mind tend to respond is the real question for atheists. It's okay for secular people to seek numinous experiences.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

The concept of God, I think, is also tied to perception. There are a surprising number of descriptions of God in the old testament. I have always felt the true reflection of God comes from inside us. What we are and what we do reflects what is inside us as good or bad. Most know good when they experience it and also bad or evil. I have no reason or theory for the few that medically cannot conceive of such concepts. Once in a dream did I call out to God and actually get a response. I thought it was just my own desire for an answer but the fruition of the request showed me there is something out there. Don't know if it's a bearded man in flowing white robes or an alien presence whose knowledge and abilities we can only perceive as magic but I do believe there is something and for lack of visual confirmation I call it God.

Can you describe exactly what happened in the dream where you called out to God?

Summerlander wrote: Can you describe exactly what happened in the dream where you called out to God?

Not really. Events are different than emotions and words can fail in these sorts of things. There are only a few times in my life when my emotions ran high enough to make me feel that way, like I was turning into just mental energy yet it was not an OBE. Body, mind were one but not corporeal. In my most powerful dreams I now take that form but it still doesn't feel the same. The two times I can think of now, one time my mind changed, the other time my Dad passed away, although it wasn't till two days later I found out that happened. :cry:

As for the content of those dreams, it's between God and I.

This something you call God... Do you believe it exists objectively (separate from your mind)? If so, why? And is this something intelligent and the Creator of all there is?

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: This something you call God... Do you believe it exists objectively (separate from your mind)? If so, why? And is this something intelligent and the Creator of all there is?

[ Post made via Android ] Image

1. Yes it is separate because I had no influence over what happened in real life.

2. Don't understand all creation so disputing its' responsibility for that to me is useless. Because you plant seed doesn't mean you are responsible for it's growth even if you water it later. ;) Was it present or has greater knowledge about the beginning of the cosmos. I'd be surprised if it didn't.

So in fairness why do you feel God can't exist? As a scientist I am curious. ;)

Just because you have no influence over something doesn't mean it is separate from you. There are many examples: epileptic fits, most dreams, memories (some take you by surprise, some elude you try as you might) etc. etc.

I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for such Being. And it is certainly no explanation for the cosmos either for a Creator of such caliber would have to be as complex (if not more complex) than the universe itself. Which only aggravates the problem of trying to explain the origin of all there is. You are then forced to ask: who or what created God and who created His creator ad infinitum. It's no real answer and you might as well say it was magic.

As a scientist you should be aware of rich scientific theories which explain the beginning of the universe using quantum fluctuations where everything happens naturally and no deities are required. At the quantum level, if there is no spacetime, then the potential for this to emerge is enormous. Hence cosmic expansion. It fits.

If you want to learn more about why I find the notion of a God ridiculous, besides obviously man-made, read the OP. The following posts also show why no mental content can be trusted as being genuine divine revelation. Illusions, delusions, hallucinations, and dreams can be quite convincing but they do not constitute proof of anything. Likewise, the schizo who believes God talks to him cannot be taken at face value.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Well thankfully the mind police allow me to have equal baskets. I can have one full of scientific knowledge which enriches my intellectual life and a basket full of words from men alive 2000 years ago who battled the oppression those who were right by rule of law. They couldn't fully explain their experiences but proclaimed them as holy events. This basket enriches my soul and teaches me good from evil. Take either one and I am not the man I am today and would be poorer because of it.

They couldn't fully explain their experiences but proclaimed them as holy events

And if they had those experiences now they might be posting about them on a LD blog. I always think the experiences were real and they had only the reference of the time to add context to them and so they became the basis of vagarious religions.

buildit wrote: Well thankfully the mind police allow me to have equal baskets. I can have one full of scientific knowledge which enriches my intellectual life and a basket full of words from men alive 2000 years ago who battled the oppression those who were right by rule of law. They couldn't fully explain their experiences but proclaimed them as holy events. This basket enriches my soul and teaches me good from evil. Take either one and I am not the man I am today and would be poorer because of it.

Mind police? What are you talking about? You imply that all atheists, especially those who were raised secularly, have a low morale and cannot tell right from wrong, which is clearly not the case. You don't have to be a believer to be good and vice versa. (Although I would point out that atheistic countries in the world today seem to have the lowest crime rates while the most religious, like those in the Middle East and Africa, are war-torn and in great conflict.) :cry:

Need I also point out the conflict between Protestants and Catholics; and disagreements between Sunnis and Shiites? If the so-called holy scripture was the perfect word of God, shouldn't we expect it to be more coherent and less immoral? Shouldn't all who subscribe to it have an understanding? And why does it not reach everyone if god is so powerful and merciful? Why the test of the ridiculous concept of blind faith? Why is the Leader saying: "you have to be a fool to enter my kingdom - believe without proof"? :?

In the Bible, Jesus orders his acolytes to kill non-believers. It also sanctions slavery and all sorts of discrimination. And they all disagree! Many gods or just one? Or a trinity? Why is Mormonism claiming to be more complete than Christianity when it was initially racist and forced to change? why is Islam claiming to be the last revelation and the unalterable word of God? In Hinduism, the doctrine of sati says widows must be burned on the dead husband's funeral pyre. Also, religion in general has a tendency to suppress sexual urges, which, in itself, is unhealthy. It also urges you to believe in the supernatural and claims that miracles exist. To imply that you know a miracle when you see one is to imply that you know all there is to know about the universe and how it works. The great philosopher David Hume taught us this. A scientist will test the unusual event in order to learn more. He does not proclaim something to be a miracle without knowing exactly what took place for he knows that there is still a lot to learn and that illusions also exist. :geek:

The Quran speaks of holy war, martyrdom, and death to non-believers. The Bible expresses its fair share of amorality/immorality with Deuteronomy and Leviticus, where people of other faiths deserve the sword; and where Yahweh sanctions the rape, torture, and murder of men, women and children. Such crimes are okay when ordered by the Almighty. And before I forget, homosexuality, a supposed flaw in God's creation, is an abomination. Hmmm... :roll:

It also dares Abraham to kill his own son Isaac as proof of faith in a hideous test. And remember how Abraham would be viewed today if he claimed to hear the voice of God in his head! The people who were saved from Sodom, who were supposed to be God's exemplary human creation and therefore the only individuals worth saving from the city of sin, then went on to get drunk in a cave and committed incest. The Ten Commandments are just atrocious. Some are wasted in revering a jealous god. The good ones are just tediously obvious. None of the commandments protect children from abuse and religious paedophiles rejoice. (The Church protects them anyway.) Meanwhile, Prophet Muhammad's youngest wife is only nine! As I said before, God's recipe for morality can and has been improved greatly by secular humanists all over the world. (Thankfully enough, we evolve!)

As for science, it can determine human values by showing us what benefits the human race. Because of this, it can certainly help us to come up with an improved brand of morality where religion is not required. Religion, as far as I can tell, has become outdated because it is a product of mankind's infancy. (I recommend "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.)

Basic morality precedes the great monotheisms of the world: fact. It also has an evolutionary explanation. One read of Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" and you will see why the selfish gene, which has a tendency to preserve its kind if it is highly adaptive, can lead to altruism being expressed by its organic "armours" (our living bodies, i.e. us). (It is all mechanistic and nothing to do with divine revelation.) :)

Think about it. Are you telling me that if you stop believing in God there is nothing stopping you from killing, raping and stealing? Are you telling me that you are only good because so-called revelation has bribed you with a heaven whilst simultaneously threatening you with a hell? Do you not see how analogous this is with the idea of Santa Claus, his presents, and his naughty list?

Religion degrades human beings. It tells them they are incapable of thinking for themselves. It tells them they are no good and need to be saved. As Christopher Hitchens once said, "created sick, ordered to be well." He pointed out that the relationship between the invisible man and his willing servants is a sadomasochistic one. He will test you to see how faithful you are. He tells you that you must love him. He tells you he is infinitely good and all merciful whilst paradoxically reminding you that you should fear Him because His wrath is mighty and He could smite you. He is the absolute ruler for all time and there is no escape from Him. He dictates to you in this life and the next. It is a celestial dictatorship from which there is no appeal. He sent a supposedly innocent to die for your sins (no logic, no justice) and you owe Him. As much as they tell you He gave you free will, you do not really have a choice. (In fact, neuroscientific experiments pretty much demonstrate that free will is only an illusion.) :ugeek:

The tenets of this old religion do not really teach you to distinguish good from evil. Religion, in fact, blurs the lines and is schismatic by nature. It encourages discrimination. It hijacks the good that comes from human beings and sources it as divine in origin. "It could only have come from God," they say. The ruler can do anything, even kill by the millions, and His servants say He moves in mysterious ways. All it takes is for the servant to have a change of heart, to stop believing, and he is lynched, even today, like a heretic.

An Order that proclaims "holy" what it can't explain isn't enriching you, it is deceiving you. It encourages you to believe in a fantasy and to give up on the search for real answers. Searching for real answers is what science does, and with this you can marvel at its discoveries. This is what is enriching. It is enriching and humble because it claims that it does not know everything but that it is at least trying to understand.

The other side, on the other hand, claims to know without proof. It claims to be absolutely certain that there is a God and has nothing to show for itself. It also claims to know the mind of God, which is a very dangerous affair.

Now, I leave you with a quote:

" Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years. Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks "That's enough of that. It's time to intervene," and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person."

• Christopher Hitchens

Here he is in all his glory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQgHds6eIJ0

Thomas Hobbes once said that dreams are the source of such religious interpretations. In our infancy, we learned to trust wrong interpretations. Freud himself would tell you God is the product of wishful thinking by an individual who fears the unknown. It can be comforting to imagine that a Father watches over you all the time. But there is also something sinister about this. an Orwellian dystopia where you can be accused of thought crime (you don't even have to do anything). The Big Brother in the sky! :twisted:

Summerlander wrote: In the Bible, Jesus orders his acolytes to kill non-believers.

Odd I never read that part. Maybe you could point out where Jesus did this in the new testament?

You seem to have your mind made up and even sort of mad about it. Need I point out that the worst atrocity in our worlds history was the persecution of the Jews by an atheist culture called the Nazi's. Lack of religion is as deadly as the over exuberance in it, especially when led by a war lord, king, sycophant or other chrismatic leader capable of twisting meanings to their needs. :(

Actually, as I pointed out in the "Religion and politics: Iraqi Crisis" thread, Hitler was not an atheist. He believed that he was guided by "Providence" and subscribed to the occult and nordic rites. He once even referred to this providence as God in a speech and Mein Kampf clearly justifies the percecution of Jews as God's will. He also made a pact with the Vatican and he never officially renounced Christianity either. So there you have it: a Christian who is responsible for the Holocaust.

Many religious people play the Hitler card in order to argue that atheism is just as destructive. But this has been refuted a thousand times. You could have gone for Stalin, who was in fact an atheist, but then again Stalin did what he did for his own doctrine: his twisted brand of Marxism! And he also employed a pseudo-scientist, Lysenko, in order to mislead his countrymen. He took advantage of many servile people from the old Czarist empire, and simply introduced his dictatorship where he, the head of the state, was to be begged and revered like a superman. Their human god!

To have any sort of argument against what I propose as the best society to have, you'd have to show me a nation who subscribed to the teachings of Lucretius, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Darwin, Newton, Voltaire, Einstein, Dawkins, Hitchens...and other members of the Enlightenment, standing for science and reason, and still fell quarry to war, famine, disease, and depression. I think you won't find one. Not even the Netherlands or Sweden, who have the lowest crime rate and are the most secular, are on that level.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: Actually, as I pointed out in the "Religion and politics: Iraqi Crisis" thread, Hitler was not an atheist. He believed that he was guided by "Providence" and subscribed to the occult and nordic rites. He once even referred to this providence as God in a speech and Mein Kampf clearly justifies the percecution of Jews as God's will. He also made a pact with the Vatican and he never officially renounced Christianity either. So there you have it: a Christian who is responsible for the Holocaust.

Many religious people play the Hitler card in order to argue that atheism is just as destructive. But this has been refuted a thousand times. You could have gone for Stalin, who was in fact an atheist, but then again Stalin did what he did for his own doctrine: his twisted brand of Marxism! And he also employed a pseudo-scientist, Lysenko, in order to mislead his countrymen. He took advantage of many servile people from the old Czarist empire, and simply introduced his dictatorship where he, the head of the state, was to be begged and revered like a superman. Their human god!

To have any sort of argument against what I propose as the best society to have, you'd have to show me a nation who subscribed to the teachings of Lucretius, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Darwin, Newton, Voltaire, Einstein, Dawkins, Hitchens...and other members of the Enlightenment, standing for science and reason, and still fell quarry to war, famine, disease, and depression. I think you won't find one. Not even the Netherlands or Sweden, who have the lowest crime rate and are the most secular, are on that level.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Well at least you hold Christians to a higher standard than the atheist. But per your request for an atheist who was an evil monster many people agree that Napoleon Bonaparte, heavily involved in the anti-clerical French Revolution, was atheist – he claimed that “all religions have been made by men”. He was one of the best ever military commanders, and conquered much of Europe. He staged a coup and declared himself Emperor. While he ended anarchy in post-Revolution France, many considered him a tyrant and usurper. He ignored treaties and conventions, seeking undisputed rule throughout Europe. He plundered conquered territories. His 17 years of rule resulted in the bankruptcy of France, loss of many of her territories, six million dead Europeans and economic setback in just one generation. How about Kim Jong-Il? The de facto leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and responsible for the deaths of four million of his fellow Koreans. He is also at the heart of a bizarre personality cult; apocryphal stories such as how “at the time of his birth there were flashes of lightening and thunder, the iceberg in the pond on Mt. Paektu emitted a mysterious sound as it broke, and bright double rainbows rose up” are abundant. Those caught stealing food in the famine-struck nation, or attempting to cross the borders, are subject to public execution. Kim is continuing his lavish lifestyle and military obsession in spite of the crumbling economy. In North Korea he and his father are deified, considered saviors of the whole universe. 250,000 dissidents are confined to “re-education camps”. He has waged a war on South Korea that involved assassinating South Korean leaders and blowing up South Korean planes. He presents a great threat to the world in terms of nuclear warfare, having persuaded the Soviet Union to award him a nuclear reactor in 1984.

Blaming religion for the lack of moral character is like blaming color of skin. It's just a form of bigotry which humans are so good at. :?

Napolean also ignored the teachings of men of the Enlightenment, like Thomas Paine, who also said all religions are manmade - he was a Deist (but venial for his time since science was in its infancy. Like Stalin, Napolean went after the Church for their power, not in the name of disbelief (in God) aka atheism. Your racial analogy also does not wash. Religion texts explicitly exude immorality. Cherry-pickers just ignore the bad parts. And if you are one of those who subscribes to the silly word "Islamophobia," ask yourself why most people think "Muslim" when they hear "suicide bomber." And what do you think the 9/11 hijackers believed in anyway? The Devil? Were they atheists too? Religion makes sane peole commit crazy things...

The Kim family established a necrocracy where the dead leader lives in the son. He is god to those people. At some point they must have read George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and thought, "This is doable." Don't be fooled by the titled "democracy" either. The regime there is not unlike Stalinism. They have established their own religion which subscribes to a form of reincarnation. This isn't promoting science, truth, and reason which naturally leads to atheism. This is promoting a form of theistic fantasy that keeps the people dumb. It's sadomasochism out there. Poor example again, mate.

About Jesus, this is found in John 15:6: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Luke 19:27: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them before me."

EDITED

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: About Jesus, this is found in John 15:6: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Read the whole section Jesus is describing what happens to those within who he does not exist. They wither and like a dead branch are gathered my men and burned. So again, where does Jesus tell his disciples to kill and slaughter the nonbelievers? Or anyone for that matter? Maybe if you read about christ you might find he was not the jerk that people who were forced by over protective parents to study in Catholic School remember because the priest was a child molestor. In the end I am sorry we disagree. I'm sorry you hate religion. For whatever we or those saying they represented religion did "I" apologize. However, like rounding up ever lucid dreamer and calling them a nut case, you would be wrong and have over simplified everything. You argue your point well and I fear if I continue to debate you I will become heated and impolite. So I will have to bow out and hope someday you find the side of religion that helps people become more than they are.

I edited my last post. Go read it, my friend. ;-) On religion: there is no peaceful religion. It stultifies the human race and hinders progress.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: Luke 19:27: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them before me."

EDITED

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Christ was speaking of their wealth not people. Interpretation varies but suffice it to say if you read the context of what is said, nobody is killed. The book describes Christs views and issues with wealth.

nesgirl wrote:

buildit wrote:Summerlander wrote:Luke 19:27: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them before me."

EDITED

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Christ was speaking of their wealth not people. Interpretation varies but suffice it to say if you read the context of what is said, nobody is killed. The book describes Christs views and issues with wealth.

My Lucid Dream friend splash back in high school was wealthy, and yet she wasn't once a jerk back then. In fact she faced much of the same problems I did back then because she had probability Lucid Dreams like I had, and faced much persecution because of it. Actually she fit in with my group of Lucid Dreaming friends just as much as the rest of us, and probability didn't make too much of a difference to us.

You can be wealthy of spirit and wealthy of money. It's not a this or that situation ;-) However to those who Christ has given much is expected of them in giving. Otherwise you are selfish and not worth the gifts you have received. Make sense? :D

never happening, I am anti-romantic

Nice post, I learned to never to say never as it always bites me but accepting of your view :)

@nesgirl: I have gone on a killing spree in a lucid dream before and got a big buzz out of it. But I am not a serial killer in real life though. :-D

@buildit: The argument from exegesis is a very lame one. Again, I pose the question: if scripture is the perfect word of God, why is it so incoherent. Why is it so equivocal to the point of leading to disagreements over interpretation and leading to war and conflict. It seems more like a sham to me. Moreover, where is the sense in having a supposedly perfectly innocent individual such as Jesus Christ to pay for the crimes committed by mankind? In the world that we live in today, an innocent going down for the crimes of another is an attrocity. It isn't justice because criminals should be accountable for their wrongdoing. The responsibility should be theirs. This point has already been raised almost three centuries ago by Thomas Paine in his book "Age of Reason."

I am also proud to say that I am an atheist who has raised thousands of pounds for my best man's nephew's son, who is only five and has a rare form of childhood cancer called Neuroblastoma. And I was never touched by Jesus Christ! This also brings me to the next issue: what sort of good god makes a child suffer like that?

And then the same is applicable to so-called salvation: Why did God create sinners only to punish them when He could just fix them? If He is powerless to make them see the light, if He is powerless to convince them, then He is not omnipotent.

And why did He create atheists? Why did He create people who would question everything, demand evidence (as they should), and expose the notion of faith for the ridiculous folly that it is?

I rest my case... :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

You just proven you cannot even reason.

Let me show you what some peasants were working on.

Definition: A thing is any material in an form or shape.

Therefore, we can name a thing, and we can name the two elements of a thing, a things form and a things material difference. The same biologically, we either abstract form or material difference. That is all we can name.

Thus we that three, and only three categories of names. Things can be defined, and they are defined as a combination of names of their form and the material in that form.

Neither form nor material can be defined, they are not things. We can only name them. Common grammar, logic itself, depends on two distinct naming conventions. One is defined in terms of the other, predicates, must, as Aristotle noted, always be learned by experience, perception itself. Therefore, until standard perceptibles are established, a species is proto linguistic. Not even a modern dictionary will give you that information, yet Plato knew it, wrote about it. The Book uses it from the very start of the book to paint pictures and test judgment. I.e. to test your analogical reasoning because logic is not logic until it complies with analogic. Or in short, We testify to what we have seen, and speak of what we have known.

Therefore, Definition is simply the preservation of the social convention of names which equate the name of a thing to the names of its elements. The names of things, is the Subject naming convention. The name of a thing as a combination of names of that things elements is the Predicate naming convention.

So, You really believe that you can reason? I hardly think so. There is no correct grammar book today. You believe that Einstein could reason when he did not know he was violating the first principles of language?

Metaphor is a way of using predicates to point to subjects which are equal, and synonomous, like God and Truth. If you are proto linguistic, your mind fantasizes the wrong thing. The Book, as is written in it, tests human judgment. In a metaphor, tests the heart of man. The only reason I am alive today is because I was shown, as if time had stopped that I had just made a fatal mistake. I was given all the time I needed to examine and think about my situation, from a vantage point far from my real body. I was seconds away from death, and given a choice.

I can reason as much as you can write in English, my friend. :mrgreen:

AJ Ayer. Get some logical positivism down you.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

LAMO, thanks for referring me to someone who could not reason his way out of a bag of potato chips. Really brightens my day.

I'm not the one trying to prove something here. I have not seen you win a Nobel prize either if you are such a great philosopher, linguist and mathematician. You have already put me off of taking you seriously when you spoke in metaphors and demonstrated your ignorance of Darwinism.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Really? I was unaware of the speed at which you can read my posted essays. You really are amazing. I was under the impression, that by definition, Since every environmental acquisition system of a living organism is designed to maintain and promote the life of the body, that Darwin showed complete ignorance of this fact. By definition, any species that dominates the environment to extinction is not the fittest. It may be physically stronger, but it just killed itself, much like your own reasoning.

A wiser man once said, "in order to have life, and have it more abundantly." This means a balanced ecosystem, even by definition.

Now I just posted another 456 pages of proofed mathematics, enjoy.

"Every environmental acquisition system of a living organism is designed to maintain and promote the life of the body."

One thing is clear. You really should brush up on your Darwinism. Or simple anatomy and physiology. Natural selection is a blind mechanism, not a designer. And it shows.

Also, "fitness" is not necessarily adaptivity to an individual's or population's environment but a reproductive fitness. Any attribute that enhances an individual's reproductive potency (and, incidentally, that includes staying alive long enough to proliferate) is considered a "fit" attribute.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

I am amazing, yes, thank you. Again you misunderstand the term "fit," Philosopher. It doesn't necessarily mean physically stronger. You clearly don't know Darwin so I suggest you read his literature or even the updates that support his theory (and fact).

What you are talking about is self-preservation, which, if you were familiar with the diversity of life and its functions, you'd know isn't always present. A mother octopus, for example, will sacrifice itself to hatch thousands of its eggs. In humans, as I mentioned before, the desire for self-destruction can override the survival instinct.

So no, life doesn't necessarily promote life, it preserves itself successfully or unsuccessfully (this in itself shows it is not intelligently designed - or God is a terrible engineer :mrgreen:) and reproduces/replicates. Now here is where I expose your oxymoron: if life promoted itself and were intelligently designed, 99% of all the species that ever walked the Earth would not have gone extinct.

Lol, my friend deschainXIX has just clarified the Darwinian terminology for you. :-D

Goodnight, guys!

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I guess you cannot see it again. When you divide a living organism into its environmental acquisition systems, you go from the linear thinking of Darwin, to a multidimensional concept.

Each system addresses a portion of life, each addresses a specific environmental variable. Thus, you cannot look at things as simple mindedly as Darwin.

So, once again, what is a fit mind?

What environmental variable is it meant to address, and what portion of the environment has it to master in order for man to survive? The answer is in the essay, hidden in a puzzle of the Book. The answer is biologically provable. Yet it was not recognized by Darwin.

The Book divides living organisms into its component environmental acquisition systems. Multidimensional thinking.

Or do you really believe the seven last plagues of man is what you imagine it to be? There are seven environmental variables we have to deal with. You keep talking about living organisms like Darwin, simple one dimensional things.

Okay let me make it clear to you. We serve no purpose in this world according to science, and we have no reason to exist (why people kill themselves for that exact reason, and I expect the rate to rise to 50% once science conquers the world). There is no such thing as happiness, love, or positivity in this world. Everything is basically a very miserable illusion we live in, giving us every reason to hate reality, hate this universe, and hate life. And I can give you several reasons why to absolutely be a miserable person and hate science, and basically hate life:

1. The way romance works. Basically romance it is a sick disgusting perverted system, and science wants to pervert it even more. I don't see why we couldn't have just remained asexual creatures like the bacteria and the whiptail lizard. It would have made life so much easier.
2. The way science treats us and the way they treat the poor animals and creatures in the laboratories. Basically in a future with science, if they could create more perfected humans, they wouldn't hesitate to actually terminate the inferior humans to create the more perfected humans, because as they say, life means nothing to them, and they would probably kill off the useless life to create superior life forms. They even torture rats and other animals in the laboratories.
3. The way basically life is. Basically science says a person is worth much less than a piece of @#$@, and basically they could care less if a person kills themselves or not, or if they get picked on or whatever. Or even if the whole planet were to explode, killing all the life that was on it. Science doesn't give a @#$@ about caring about anyone or anything. So basically we are doomed to live miserable negative lives.

This is why I hate life. Every discovery science has to make only makes me hate life even more.

And BTW, Mr. Philosopher, I don't think your deity would even care to even like me. Because I am basically a HUGE sinner in his eyes, and he'd probably send me to hades. Asexuality is considered a huge sin according to most religions.