May 11, 2012 -- 6:44PM, MsTopaz wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 8:51AM, unitychaplain wrote:

Evil has no objective reality it springs from our perception that we are separated from God. That is an illusion of our senses and is not true . 

Thank you for the response, Ron. OK, i can see how someone could make the argument that a natural disaster is not "evil." But what about human actions against other humans? Would you not call genocide or child abuse evil?

I will read the book you suggested but I haven't done so yet.

I suppose it might come down to one's interpretation of 'evil', but anyway you cut it, an earthquake that leads to a tsunami that kills quarter of a million people, or a plague that kills several million in unimaginably horrible ways, could reasonably be called a 'natural evil', part of what writer Annie Dillard calls life histories 'in some hellish hagiography' (think, for instance, of the five great extinction events, puntuated by hundreds of thousands of smaller, but no less devasting, examples).

It even gets worse if one adds into the equation the unjustified belief that some advance that a hypothetically 'caring' God created a world where such 'evils' would predominate. Such a belief, of course, is obviously the product of wishful thinking made worse when it is accompanied by the ridiculous proposition that such evil is not 'real' but merely a failure of human perception! 

We happen also to be the products of natural selection, of genes that are essentially and necessarily selfish, with a rigid set of rules that maximise a very narrow kind of short-term advantage. It is a system that works wonderfully well, on its own limited terms. It has produced everything in us that is both 'good' and 'evil', but it is completely amoral, devoid of empathy and long-term concern. It is up to us to provide these moral qualities, to give life on Earth a conscience. We are the world's first ethical animals, at the mercy still of our biology, but capable also of rising above it. Intelligence helps.

May 12, 2012 -- 3:55AM, Namchuck wrote:

May 11, 2012 -- 6:44PM, MsTopaz wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 8:51AM, unitychaplain wrote:

Evil has no objective reality it springs from our perception that we are separated from God. That is an illusion of our senses and is not true . 

Thank you for the response, Ron. OK, i can see how someone could make the argument that a natural disaster is not "evil." But what about human actions against other humans? Would you not call genocide or child abuse evil?

I will read the book you suggested but I haven't done so yet.

I suppose it might come down to one's interpretation of 'evil', but anyway you cut it, an earthquake that leads to a tsunami that kills quarter of a million people, or a plague that kills several million in unimaginably horrible ways, could reasonably be called a 'natural evil', part of what writer Annie Dillard calls life histories 'in some hellish hagiography' (think, for instance, of the five great extinction events, puntuated by hundreds of thousands of smaller, but no less devasting, examples).

It even gets worse if one adds into the equation the unjustified belief that some advance that a hypothetically 'caring' God created a world where such 'evils' would predominate. Such a belief, of course, is obviously the product of wishful thinking made worse when it is accompanied by the ridiculous proposition that such evil is not 'real' but merely a failure of human perception! 

We happen also to be the products of natural selection, of genes that are essentially and necessarily selfish, with a rigid set of rules that maximise a very narrow kind of short-term advantage. It is a system that works wonderfully well, on its own limited terms. It has produced everything in us that is both 'good' and 'evil', but it is completely amoral, devoid of empathy and long-term concern. It is up to us to provide these moral qualities, to give life on Earth a conscience. We are the world's first ethical animals, at the mercy still of our biology, but capable also of rising above it. Intelligence helps.

Hello Namschuck

Of course it depends on the definition of evil. But you can't quantify a 'natural disaster" and 'blame' it on  God. The question is how do we explain evil . You as an atheistic materialist must  believe in some or all of the follwing.

1 Total absolute chance creation

2. That laws that govern the cosmos self created themselves prior to the existence of what they were going to regulate.

3. That as some point and spontaneously by mere chance inert, lifeless matter became alive. In other words abiogenesis.

At the same time, neither you nor I have any verifiable repeatable and falsifiable proof (The very standards of the Scientific Method) of the existence of God or of any number of other subjects that, because of their nature are not subject to the Scientific Method, which is, as far as I know, the only objective standard for physical proof.

Unless you  can, somehow, inpute the above , we must agree tha,t since we have to function in life and we cannot fully function on proof (we lack knowledge, etc) we must all, function on a daily basis on the basis of opinion, which is a form of belief, which is the corner stone of faith.

Thus considering my three points as to what you must belief to ban atheistic materialist . I must confess that you far exceed my faith with yours.  Plese do not be offended all this is tongue in cheek so to speak.  You have or think you have proof , and scientific evidence I, on the other hand have or think I have my own evidence and since the while matter of creation cannot be falsified,  verified measured , or duplicated, the 'quality' of your belief and mine and of our evidences is roughly the same.

 I, as theist, however have something you do not have, because if you had it, (and hopefully you will have it some day) you would not be an atheist but a believer. That something is experiential knowledge A Spiritual experience that while subjective in at least some measure does give me a millions like me assurance and hope. 

As a matter of fact if you wanted to, you could obtain that same same assurance. Of course you would have to open your mind , both hemispheres of the brain now, the logical and the emotional, to the possibility that all is not as it seems and there is the possibility, heavens to dixie! That there is an actual creator. If you want to follow this line of though, even if you only do it as an experiment , do please let me know I might be able to 'hook you up' so to speak

 You are blessed

 John

May 21, 2012 -- 6:08AM, unitychaplain2 wrote:

May 12, 2012 -- 3:55AM, Namchuck wrote:

May 11, 2012 -- 6:44PM, MsTopaz wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 8:51AM, unitychaplain wrote:

Evil has no objective reality it springs from our perception that we are separated from God. That is an illusion of our senses and is not true . 

Thank you for the response, Ron. OK, i can see how someone could make the argument that a natural disaster is not "evil." But what about human actions against other humans? Would you not call genocide or child abuse evil?

I will read the book you suggested but I haven't done so yet.

I suppose it might come down to one's interpretation of 'evil', but anyway you cut it, an earthquake that leads to a tsunami that kills quarter of a million people, or a plague that kills several million in unimaginably horrible ways, could reasonably be called a 'natural evil', part of what writer Annie Dillard calls life histories 'in some hellish hagiography' (think, for instance, of the five great extinction events, puntuated by hundreds of thousands of smaller, but no less devasting, examples).

It even gets worse if one adds into the equation the unjustified belief that some advance that a hypothetically 'caring' God created a world where such 'evils' would predominate. Such a belief, of course, is obviously the product of wishful thinking made worse when it is accompanied by the ridiculous proposition that such evil is not 'real' but merely a failure of human perception! 

We happen also to be the products of natural selection, of genes that are essentially and necessarily selfish, with a rigid set of rules that maximise a very narrow kind of short-term advantage. It is a system that works wonderfully well, on its own limited terms. It has produced everything in us that is both 'good' and 'evil', but it is completely amoral, devoid of empathy and long-term concern. It is up to us to provide these moral qualities, to give life on Earth a conscience. We are the world's first ethical animals, at the mercy still of our biology, but capable also of rising above it. Intelligence helps.

Hello Namschuck

 

Of course it depends on the definition of evil. But you can't quantify a 'natural disaster" and 'blame' it on  God. The question is how do we explain evil .

Quite right, John, which is why I don't "blame it" on God. As I'm not aware that there is any compelling evidence for the existence of such an entity, I can't honestly foist responsibility for what I see as 'natural evil' on any sort of imaginary deity.

In fact, the sort of evil we see in the universe is perfectly consistent with the notion that no such entity - and certainly not a caring one - exists. 

You as an atheistic materialist must  believe in some or all of the follwing.

Atheism and materialism are two very different things, John, and there are several kinds or varieties of materialism.

1 Total absolute chance creation

What, for the origin of the universe, or for life? At this stage in our understanding, God is not a necessary or justified explanation for the origin of either. We now have far better explanations for origins, cosmological and biological, explanations that do not invoke the infinite regressions that haunt all of the theisms. 

2. That laws that govern the cosmos self created themselves prior to the existence of what they were going to regulate.

You probably could have articulated that better, but I would suggest that the "laws that govern the universe" likely evolved along with the universe. That's certainly where the preponderance of evidence is pointing, with none - significantly - pointing in the other direction.

3. That as some point and spontaneously by mere chance inert, lifeless matter became alive. In other words abiogenesis.

Yes, I would go along with that. There are now several good hypotheses (about 50, in fact) how life might have arisen, and given the ever-decreasing distance between living and non-living matter, it seems more and more likely that it was an emergent event.

We may never actually know, but taking into account the undeniable fact that life has evolved on this planet, and that we live in a universe that is patently indifferent to the life that is upon the Earth, there is certainly no good grounds to invoke any kindly disposed deities as being responsible.

At the same time, neither you nor I have any verifiable repeatable and falsifiable proof (The very standards of the Scientific Method) of the existence of God or of any number of other subjects that, because of their nature are not subject to the Scientific Method, which is, as far as I know, the only objective standard for physical proof.

You are either misrepresenting science here, John, or you simply don't understand it. Science doesn't deal in 'proofs', but in probabilities. There is a very clear inverse relationship between the amount of human knowledge and the credit (or blame) we are willing to give God for direct intervention in the universe: the more we know, the less we attribute to divine causes. Any scientist faced with such a remarkably consistent trend would not hesitate much to extrapolate and declare God likely non-existent.

Unless you  can, somehow, inpute the above , we must agree tha,t since we have to function in life and we cannot fully function on proof (we lack knowledge, etc) we must all, function on a daily basis on the basis of opinion, which is a form of belief, which is the corner stone of faith.

That is simply nonsense.

In the branch of philosophy called 'epistemology' - the theory of knowledge - knowledge is defined as belief which is both true and justified. One main theory describes knowledge as a relationship between a state of mind and a fact. The content of the mental state is a judgement responsibly made, and the fact is (for example) some arrangement of the world which, when the judgement is true, is what makes it so. Belief differs from knowledge in that whereas the later is controlled by the facts, and depends upon the right relationship between mind and the world, the former is all in the mind, and does not rely upon anything in the world. One can, in short, believe anything, which is what makes faith, among other things, so parlous.

Furthermore, all religions are based on faith. Even opposing religions are based on faith. If faith can lead to false beliefs, of what value is it? 

Thus considering my three points as to what you must belief to ban atheistic materialist .

Again, abject nonsense, John. Your "three points" are grounded in misrepresentations and misapprehensions, and, as I suggested above, it seems quite clear that you neither understand the meaning of atheism or the variety's of materialism.

I must confess that you far exceed my faith with yours.

What!? You want to project onto me your false perceptions and then invoke faith on my part for believing them!? What unadulterated temerity, not to mention highly questionable integrity.

  Plese do not be offended all this is tongue in cheek so to speak.

How could one not be offended by such a raft of inanities, inanities I half suspect you are - perhaps unconsciously - aware of, which is why you are attempting to excuse them as being delivered in jest.

  You have or think you have proof , and scientific evidence I, on the other hand have or think I have my own evidence and since the while matter of creation cannot be falsified,  verified measured , or duplicated, the 'quality' of your belief and mine and of our evidences is roughly the same.

Here again you are misrepresenting science while, at the same time, projecting your ignorance upon me and then judging me for believing it! Are you crazy? All you have proffered for your position so far is the well-known argument from ignorance, which is about as hollow an argument as one could advance.

 I, as theist, however have something you do not have, because if you had it, (and hopefully you will have it some day) you would not be an atheist but a believer.

Yes, I concede that you have something that I don't have, which is nothing other than intense credulity.

I am an atheist simply because there is no favorable evidence to warrant belief in a God, or gods. If there was, I would have genuine pause to seriously reconsider my position.

On the other hand, as a theist, all you have is an emotional commitment to what may be for you a comforting idea, a commitment - I'd suggest - that is likely indifferent to the evidence that there probably is no God.

That something is experiential knowledge A Spiritual experience that while subjective in at least some measure does give me a millions like me assurance and hope.

And I don't deny that people have such experiences (they don't point to anything outside of the head), but personal protestations based on personal experience is no guarantee of truth. People are disposed to all sorts of extreme claims based on such experiences, even different and utterly contradictory ones. They only amount to a personal interpretation of a personal experience and do not count as evidence for God.

 

As a matter of fact if you wanted to, you could obtain that same same assurance.

Yes, I know I could, and all I would have to do is surrender the sound use of understanding, avoid the rational ordering of my mind and the implementation of a true critical will, and flag the general mobilization of intelligence - everything, in fact, that makes me particularly and uniquely human. But why should I, or anyone else for that matter, when there are no good and compelling reasons to do so!? 

Of course you would have to open your mind , both hemispheres of the brain now, the logical and the emotional, to the possibility that all is not as it seems and there is the possibility, heavens to dixie! That there is an actual creator.

Is your ego so inflated, John, that you are convinced that anyone who doesn't believe as you do has a closed mind!? What presumption!

I don't know why I should be telling you, but I have always had an open mind to the things we have been talking about (but not so open that my brains have spilled out). The fact is that I simply - as mentioned already - have never come across any compelling evidence (and I have sought it) to convince me that theism is true. In fact, on the contrary. There is sufficient evidence to convince me that it is not true.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced at all that genuine spirituality is anchored in unjustified and insupportable beliefs such as those that fall within the embrace of theism.

If you want to follow this line of though, even if you only do it as an experiment , do please let me know I might be able to 'hook you up' so to speak

I have done the "experiments", John, and, quite frankly - and largely as a result of your post above - I wouldn't have the least confidence that you could "hook" me up with anything genuinely spiritual. Presumption, assumption, and projected benightedness seems to be all that you really have to offer. Rough magic indeed.

 You are blessed

 John

 

 

Jun 1, 2012 -- 2:53PM, RevDella wrote:

Hi Ms Topaz -

I began my spiritual journey in Unity and I love the Prayer for Protection. Even though I am now a Religious Science Minister, I still speak at Unity churches.

God is Love. God is Good. God is Freedom -- and that includes the freedom to think what you want. When I say the Prayer for Protection, I am saying it with the full understanding that it is true -- for me. 'Wherever I am God is and wherever God is, all is well.'  So if a natural disaster occurred, either I would not be in it, or I would not be hurt by it.  We don't have control over the entire world, but we do co-create our own personal world. And we co-create our world by our beliefs.

Many religions believe that negative situations are God's will. But God's will for each of us is ALWAYS  good. It never includes situations which would cause us harm or pain. However, if we believe that we can be hurt, then we might experience difficulties. But it isn't because God wants us to suffer. It is because we believe that suffering is a possibility for us, and so we get what we believe.

Rev. Della

Honestly, it sounds crazy to me to say that you can control whether you will be harmed by a natural disaster. So everyone who is hurt in an earthquake or tsunami just had the wrong thoughts? 

Jun 1, 2012 -- 4:11PM, RevDella wrote:

I would encourage you to read the Daily Word on a regular basis. It includes testimonies of people who have had conditions healed by affirmative prayer. I think it could be helpful to you in realizing that you have the power to co-create your world. 

I am skeptical but this is an interesting discussion.