The way I, as an Atheist, wish religion worke

[Magicjax]

Bear with me as I attempt to express the thought I have in mind.

As I read around this section or UM and other sites. And as I listen to pod casts on the subject of religion and Non-religion. A thought occurred to me. Although I do not believe any paranormal event or being exists. There are some aspects of religion that I do see the benefit of. I'm not just talking about the community and social aspect of going to church. I'm talking about the personal benefits that can come from some religious practices.

I basically see the idea of god as a way or giving "The Void" a name. What do I mean by "The Void". Well I'm sure you've all heard the terms "Sharing with the Void". It usually means that a person is just speaking their mind to no one in particular but gain some kind of benefit from expressing themselves. These are many examples of this such as writing in a diary or journal. Talking on a hotline. Talking to a friend or even a pet. Just expressing yourself, even by writing or talking to someone or something that can't understand your words, can have positive effects. It can help with depression, help deal with addiction, help focus on solving a problem or fore filling a task. We all know that sometimes just speaking your mind can be helpful.

I'll be the first to admit that I have talked to my dog when I was depressed. I had my arms wrapped tight around my dogs neck with tears running down my cheek as I cried about a lost loved one. I expressed all my thoughts to that dog and it really did help. I of course knew my dog didn't understand my words. I knew my dog couldn't grant any of my wishes. But it still helped me get through that hard time.

This is how I think prayer can and sometimes does help. My issue is I can't fill that void with something that I'm suppose to believe is true on blind faith just because it was taught to me. My dog gave me comfort because I had respect for this friend. That respect was earned, not taught to me. The same goes for any friend or family member I have. That respect is earned. Not taught.

Now I'm going to share a video clip. I know this is a silly video and I'm not trying to make fun of a serious issue. But this video does illustrate a point I want to make. Here's a guy that basically gave his "Void" a name and a face. Even gave it what you would call rituals. But it all came from him and him alone. Is this silly? Of course it is. But I think about it this way. If everyone found their own way to fill that void. To give their own name and if they so desire a face to it in their own way. It would be by writing about their inner most thoughts and feeling in a diary or journal. A statue or object they find or create that has some meaning to it. (Let's face it. Some people even name their car and computer). If their "void" was theirs and theirs alone there would be no need to tell anyone else about it. It's not to be taught to others. Its each individuals personal way of filling that void.

I'm sure some of you are thinking that in a way that's exactly what religion is today. Or why it came to be in the first place. Something to fill that void. Well, to some maybe it is. But for the most part you have to fallow the ways of others. It's not your own way that you found on your own. It's a way that was taught to you (If you're a religious person). It wasn't designed specifically for you or by you. You're religion, no matter which one it is, was taught to you. There's nothing personal about it. Religion has become a booming business. No, I'm not suggesting every religious person is bad or everyone that believes in god is a religious fanatic. I'm just saying that I believe the world would be a better place if each found their own way to fill this void in the way they them self devise. And there is benefit from that void being filled with something that is here and now (Friend, family, pet, diary, etc...). Things that you know are there and real.

Anyway, just sharing a thought. Thanks for listening (You're one of my voids )

Edited March 3, 2012 by Magicjax

[Toadie]

Animals I believe personally help best with sadness, when your down and there is nothing wrong with talking to your pet

[Cassea]

That to me is the definition of the Holy Spirit. Not just filling our void but also awakening that ability to be an example to others. I hope you find your way of filling your void and following your bliss.

[~TheBigK~]

This is how I think prayer can and sometimes does help. My issue is I can't fill that void with something that I'm suppose to believe is true on blind faith just because it was taught to me. My dog gave me comfort because I had respect for this friend. That respect was earned, not taught to me. The same goes for any friend or family member I have. That respect is earned. Not taught.

I really like the way you explained that, and I agree completely.

When I was a kid I had that blind faith because I was always taught that God existed and there weren't any other options. As I grew older I realized that there were in fact other options and now I would consider myself agnostic. I remember a few times though that it felt rather strange and lonely not believing and not finding comfort in things like prayer. It felt worse though to pray and not believe anyone was listening, y'know, to do it without conviction. I do think it's good that it gives many people comfort though as long as they realize it may not be that way for everyone. I get more comfort from things that I know for sure are there and that I'm not unsure about. Like you said, things like pets and writing can be great for that and honestly those are two of my favorite things. However you fill "the void" is up to you. Do whatever feels right to you, as long as it's legal of course.

[GoldenWolf]

Very good movie.

[Cybele]

"If everyone found their own way to fill that void. To give their own name and if they so desire a face to it in their own way. It would be by writing about their inner most thoughts and feeling in a diary or journal. A statue or object they find or create that has some meaning to it. (Let's face it. Some people even name their car and computer). If their "void" was theirs and theirs alone there would be no need to tell anyone else about it. It's not to be taught to others. Its each individuals personal way of filling that void."

I've experimented with "filling the void" in some of the ways you describe, and have found that sometimes the void talks back.

What you describe is a very solitary form of spirituality which would not really qualify as religion, technically, and might not suit or suffice for many people.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Cybele

[Clarakore]

The conflict and balance between individualism and collectivism I believe is highly dependent on the individual. Some would still find their own personal expressions even in a highly communal society while others are more comfortable with integrating their beliefs and practices with others.

I think modern society has room for both but also that searching and developing new religions that work for us as a collective would also benefit us tremendously. This will happen naturally anyways.

[Arpee]

I think that is the problem. People want to "fill" the void instead of accepting it as it is. Why turn it into a spirit or a god? Why not accept it as the empty, still, calm, peaceful place that it is in REALITY?

Once you do, you will never experience boredom or feel bad about yourself again, you'll always be able to return to this "void" inside of you and it'll bring you stillness, emptiness, peace, and a feeling of freedom.

IF God is the truth, then we should be embracing REALITY and loving it.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Arpee

[eight bits]

And there is benefit from that void being filled with something that is here and now (Friend, family, pet, diary, etc...). Things that you know are there and real.

No. That you know are there and real. There are people who are as confident that their god(s) attend to them as I am confident that your dog understood that you were in distress and wished to provide the comfort you derived from the interaction.

Of what benefit to others is it to restrict their conversations to those beings you believe in?

You have a great opportunity here to understand the mind of your opponents. Stay with the dog, and know that there are people who are as sure that I am mistaken about the dog as you are sure that they are mistaken about their god.

We have known since the ELIZA experiments that people will derive psychological comfort from interaction, "pouring their hearts out," with an automaton, and not a very agile conversationalist.

http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html

So, I am just about certain that any personhood anyone attributes to Eliza must be a projection (from them and them alone), because I know what's there, and it isn't a person. It follows that I cannot eliminate that projection accounts for my beliefs about the dog. For that matter, I cannot eliminate projection in the case of a human being (not the personhood, but how I perceive them, including the idea that they might wish to be helpful).

Knowing all that, I believe what I believe about the dog anyway, as I suspect you do, too. Enter a theist. They talk to their god. Their god responds to them, to their satisfaction in reporting the event. What's the difference?

(BTW, I didn't write Eliza, I was taught about her. I didn't witness the spontaneous reaction to her availablility, I was taught about that. I didn't discover projection, I was taught about that. This language, "English," we're communicating in? Yup, I was taught that, too. What has being taught something to do with whether the thing is or isn't true?)

=

Edited March 3, 2012 by eight bits

[Mr Walker]

No. That you know are there and real. There are people who are as confident that their god(s) attend to them as I am confident that your dog understood that you were in distress and wished to provide the comfort you derived from the interaction.

Of what benefit to others is it to restrict their conversations to those beings you believe in?

You have a great opportunity here to understand the mind of your opponents. Stay with the dog, and know that there are people who are as sure that I am mistaken about the dog as you are sure that they are mistaken about their god.

We have known since the ELIZA experiments that people will derive psychological comfort from interaction, "pouring their hearts out," with an automaton, and not a very agile conversationalist.

http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html

So, I am just about certain that any personhood anyone attributes to Eliza must be a projection (from them and them alone), because I know what's there, and it isn't a person. It follows that I cannot eliminate that projection accounts for my beliefs about the dog. For that matter, I cannot eliminate projection in the case of a human being (not the personhood, but how I perceive them, including the idea that they might wish to be helpful).

Knowing all that, I believe what I believe about the dog anyway, as I suspect you do, too. Enter a theist. They talk to their god. Their god responds to them, to their satisfaction in reporting the event. What's the difference?

(BTW, I didn't write Eliza, I was taught about her. I didn't witness the spontaneous reaction to her availablility, I was taught about that. I didn't discover projection, I was taught about that. This language, "English," we're communicating in? Yup, I was taught that, too. What has being taught something to do with whether the thing is or isn't true?)

=

IMO, a lot depends on the nature and usefulness of the advice received, in speaking to another entity. My dog is a comfort but he cannot offer any words of wisdom that i am not capapble of forming and uttering my self. Eliza, unless she has passed the turing tests, or equivalent, may well provide a comforting conversational interlude, but can offer no personal or intuitive insights. God, on the other hand, brings learned wisdoms and abilities, beyond those of dogs, AIs or mortal men As an independent sapient entity, with his own experiences and knowledgege bases, "he" can offer practical and cogent advice on a wide range of issues and subjects faced by us all. It sort of like having many types of self- sapient Apps rolled into one, and available to you at call.Eg "where to find money when you have none" "The nearest available car park." "The safest and quickest way home" and the biggie "a preview of your near future showing you dangers you will encounter and ofering methods for avoiding them" There are also " Time travel and its utilitarian uses."and, "How to travel the universe in non corporeal form." Neither my dog nor, i imagine Eliza, would be much help with any of these, but god is.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

Mr Walker

You were one of the people I had in mind when I wrote that some members would be as confident that I was mistaken about the dog as Jackson is confident that theists are mistaken about their god(s).

It's funny you should mention the Turing Test, because one of the chief points of the ELIZA experiment was to question the rationale for that test. Ordinary folks, the investigators hypothesized, would be only too willing to impute "personhood" to a computer program. Turing had devised the test on the assumption that people would be reluctant to do that.

ELIZA's role in my post was to illustrate the difficulties of projection, and that I am aware of those difficulties. ELIZA defines an end point in a spectrum of conversational partners. Since she contributes nothing of her own to the conversation, we can be sure that whatever the user gets out of the experience comes from the user and from the user alone. Presumably, the exercise energizes the user's unconscious contents, for easier conscious examination.

A remarkable thing about the contents of the unconscious is that they present as autonomous of the conscious person contemplating them. To the extent that the contents are, for some people, "undiscovered country," then perhaps they are best dealt with as what they appear to be, autonomous beings. Jung dealt with his cast of internal characters that way, to good effect.

Where I think the atheist train leaves the tracks is to get stuck at whether Jung's choice was physically right or wrong, rather than a useful or useless accommodation of undecidable psychological fact. The little film about the baseball player made these points brilliantly, in my opinion, although Jackson described it as "silly," even as he presented it for serious discussion.

Between those extremes of an inanimate object and the autonomous beings within lie the autonomous beings outside, notably Jackson's dog. You and I differ about the dog, and that disagreement needn't be rehearsed here. The point I made was that Jackson believes something about the dog (I think) even as he knows that other people believe him to be mistaken, and that those other people have a scientific-sounding explanation of why Jackson is mistaken.

And yet Jackson believes that the undisputedly physically distinct dog is psychologically autonomous of him, capable of intending solace. Thus, Jackson gets the rare gift of immediate insight into the mind of another, because what he discerns about his dog is what some theists discern about the source of an autonomous voice or presence of their god within themselves.

Jackson has already missed the point of his film clip. It would be a shame if he missed this opportunity as well. Ironically, there may be as little purpose in saying that to him as there would be in expressing my regret to you that you've missed the point of dogs. In my opinion, of course.

[Clarakore]

I once opened my heart to SmarterChild and another time to an online Ouija board. I felt better after both times as well even if I ended up arguing with SmarterChild and insulted it for not having real parents even if it claimed it did when asked.

[Mr Walker]

Mr Walker

You were one of the people I had in mind when I wrote that some members would be as confident that I was mistaken about the dog as Jackson is confident that theists are mistaken about their god(s).

It's funny you should mention the Turing Test, because one of the chief points of the ELIZA experiment was to question the rationale for that test. Ordinary folks, the investigators hypothesized, would be only too willing to impute "personhood" to a computer program. Turing had devised the test on the assumption that people would be reluctant to do that.

ELIZA's role in my post was to illustrate the difficulties of projection, and that I am aware of those difficulties. ELIZA defines an end point in a spectrum of conversational partners. Since she contributes nothing of her own to the conversation, we can be sure that whatever the user gets out of the experience comes from the user and from the user alone. Presumably, the exercise energizes the user's unconscious contents, for easier conscious examination.

A remarkable thing about the contents of the unconscious is that they present as autonomous of the conscious person contemplating them. To the extent that the contents are, for some people, "undiscovered country," then perhaps they are best dealt with as what they appear to be, autonomous beings. Jung dealt with his cast of internal characters that way, to good effect.

Where I think the atheist train leaves the tracks is to get stuck at whether Jung's choice was physically right or wrong, rather than a useful or useless accommodation of undecidable psychological fact. The little film about the baseball player made these points brilliantly, in my opinion, although Jackson described it as "silly," even as he presented it for serious discussion.

Between those extremes of an inanimate object and the autonomous beings within lie the autonomous beings outside, notably Jackson's dog. You and I differ about the dog, and that disagreement needn't be rehearsed here. The point I made was that Jackson believes something about the dog (I think) even as he knows that other people believe him to be mistaken, and that those other people have a scientific-sounding explanation of why Jackson is mistaken.

And yet Jackson believes that the undisputedly physically distinct dog is psychologically autonomous of him, capable of intending solace. Thus, Jackson gets the rare gift of immediate insight into the mind of another, because what he discerns about his dog is what some theists discern about the source of an autonomous voice or presence of their god within themselves.

Jackson has already missed the point of his film clip. It would be a shame if he missed this opportunity as well. Ironically, there may be as little purpose in saying that to him as there would be in expressing my regret to you that you've missed the point of dogs. In my opinion, of course.

I didnt watch the clip. I dont watch U tube clips, partly because they require a greater computer capapcity than I otherwise want to bother with, or feel is justifiable..Thus i dont get a lot of what you are talking about relating to the clip. Of course i realised i was one of the peole you were speakng of that ticled my sense of humpiour and i repsonded i that vein.

I have lived with dogs as a member of my family for most of my life; at times up to 8 of them They are competent "pack" animals and as long as they recognise you as the pack leader they are wonderful companions, but they are a lot less comparable to humans in self awareness than many other animals.

I found your post interesting. I am not sure about the nature of the subconsious. Whenever the findings of experts conflicts with my own experiences i go with the evidence of my experiences. (perhaps if the expert researchers had included me in their studies their results might have been different) As a child and young adoloescent, especially, I was able to identify/communicate with my subconscious, and various elements within it.

I could connect my conscious and subconscious awarenesses, (both of which had many aspects avatars or compartments of course) My principal reason, initially, was to develop my dream world abilities, but it also became obvious that, to have full conscious control of one's body and mind, one had to be able to access, understand, and control, the subconscious, as much as the conscious elements of aawreness. The forbidden planet taught me that and motivated me to ensure that, as far as possible, I was in conscious control of any

monsters lurking in my id.

I guess it depends on one's definition of autonomous. I dont accept that there are autonomous entities lurking inside my mind. There have not been since i was about 6 or 7 and began cataloguing and gainng control over them. I am an autonomous entity in whole. I am fairly certain no other 'sub" autonomous entities still exist within my mind. I appreciate that this flies in the face of modern expert belief, and i suppose i could be wrong, but if I cant find any, and they dont influence me, then that's good enough in practical terms.

Of course there are many entities within me, from various forms of useful intelligence which can be employed in dialogue and argument with each other to analyse problems etc.; through various types of thought patterns and processes which can like wise be employed, to a variety of psychogical avatars and archetypes. But these aren't autonomous, they are aspects of my mind, i can call on and use as part of my whole sapience. Several years of psychology at unversity served me little practical purpose But one was to help me understand my self and others and the nature of human psychology It built on the self learning of my childhood, and extended my understandings in many ways. It was a fascinating time, especially one course which specialised in transactional analysis, a big in thing in the early 1970s. That one course probably taught me more about human nature especailly tha tof OTHER human beings, than anything I had learned before. SAdly a lot of it was very disappointing.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Magicjax]

The dog part I mentioned is just one example. To be honest I think the example of writing in a diary or journal is the better example of what I was trying to express.

Let's look at the action of praying. Be it something as silly as praying you'll hit a home run or something as serious as the well being of a loved one.

The power of this action (prayer) brings comfort to people. This I do understand and see and have experienced the power of this even as an atheist. Saying out loud or putting deep thought into the idea such as "please let me sick friend be ok". The action of voicing that wish does have helpful effects. Especially in times when there's nothing else you can do. The void this can fill is that it helps you to not feel as helpless in the situation. It's for my own benefit. I don't expect there to be any god listening. It's not about that. It's a way to express my own frustration.

As my sister is in the hospital after a bad seizure. Of course I'm think and even saying out loud "please let her be ok". Do I believe anyone is listening? Unless I'm actually speaking to someone in person of course I don't think anyone is listening. I'm not speaking to anyone. I'm simply expressing my hopes for the situation because I have no way of removing her brain tumor.

I can see the benefit of prayer as a way of expression. Of "getting it off your chest" so to speak. But the same benefits come from talking to anyone, anything or to no one in particular. In my opinion praying with hopes that someone is listening that has the power to fix the situation could be very harmful. That blind faith has done harm. It's not the action of praying that's harmful. But the belief that the one you're expressing these desires to with no reason to believe this entity exists is the part that can be harmful. It could, and has caused people to put to much control into this made up entity.

Expressing yourself for personal relief and expression can be helpful (such as a friend, loved one, pet, diary, etc…). Praying and believing the supernatural will come to your aid is what can, at times, be dangerous.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Magicjax

[eight bits]

Jackson

First, best wishes to your sister for a speedy recovery.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that there would be comfort in expressing yourself in times of distress, even if only to yourself, or writing in a journal, etc. There is some consensus that addtional comfort can be had from sharing the expression, even with someone who didn't understand the language you were using.

Where you and I seem to be in disagreement is that I hold with Robert Heinlein that a prayer cannot hurt and may do some good. You seem to reject the Heinlein dominance principle,

Praying and believing the supernatural will come to your aid is what can, at times, be dangerous.

I see a possibility of danger if someone was praying rather than taking other action, provided that other action was both reliable and available. But if that's what you meant, then it is not taking the other reliable available action that is dangerous, rather than the prayer.

At worst, the danger of prayer couldn't exceed the danger of mistaking for any other reason that a problem was being taken care of. Furthermore, people who believe in a god do not necessarily pray for cure or repair, but for help. So where is the danger for them?

Staying with your example of the ballplayer, while he does expect his god to help, he does not expect his god to hit the home runs for him. He expects the god to quiet the bats' fear of curve balls, and looks forward to doing the rest himself. He's willing to leave his god a nice tip, too.

I cannot see the slightest danger to anyone in that.

[Beckys_Mom]

At worst, the danger of prayer couldn't exceed the danger of mistaking for any other reason that a problem was being taken care of. Furthermore, people who believe in a god do not necessarily pray for cure or repair, but for help. So where is the danger for them?

If you take a closer look at the quote you have taken from this guy...

Praying and believing the supernatural will come to your aid is what can, at times, be dangerous.

Note carefully he said - At times.. That doesn't mean all the time.. It could be he is speaking of the times when for example - You hear of the most religious disregard medial help and believed in praying the illness of their loved one away.. That is the danger of praying...meaning not taking action to seek real help and relying on a belief.. We all know the amount of times this has happened and failed sadly for the religious that did it...

I think maybe you have dug too much into his one sentence.. because when he said - at times.. It didn't mean all the time

[eight bits]

Geri, it's good to see that we share an understanding of what "at times" means.

Evidently, my post was unclear. I seek to learn at what times Jackson believes there would be a danger to prayer. I can't think of any where the prayer per se would pose a danger. Jackson hadn't given an example, or if the example was the ballplayer in the video, then I noted that I didn't see where the danger was.

So, I asked. Do you see some problem with asking him, or just engaging him in further discussion about the point he was making? I don't. That's why I did it.

[Beckys_Mom]

Geri, it's good to see that we share an understanding of what "at times" means.

Evidently, my post was unclear. I seek to learn at what times Jackson believes there would be a danger to prayer. I can't think of any where the prayer per se would pose a danger. Jackson hadn't given an example, or if the example was the ballplayer in the video, then I noted that I didn't see where the danger was.

So, I asked. Do you see some problem with asking him, or just engaging him in further discussion about the point he was making? I don't. That's why I did it.

But see.. that could be one of those times he is thinking of.. Which you have to admit, is in fact dangerous

[Meiliken]

they are a lot less comparable to humans in self awareness than many other animals.

Hehe, I had to point out that the statement should read "they are a lot less comparable to (some)humans in self awareness than many other animals."

Humans are animals, but that's a whole different discussion. But the humans I work along side sometimes seem to have the intelligence/awareness of dogs, so that comparative can be valid.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I can see the benefit of prayer as a way of expression. Of "getting it off your chest" so to speak. But the same benefits come from talking to anyone, anything or to no one in particular. In my opinion praying with hopes that someone is listening that has the power to fix the situation could be very harmful. That blind faith has done harm. It's not the action of praying that's harmful. But the belief that the one you're expressing these desires to with no reason to believe this entity exists is the part that can be harmful. It could, and has caused people to put to much control into this made up entity.

Hi Magicjax,

Leaving aside the last sentence about "this made up entity" (I'm sure you are aware that people actually believe it exists) I can somewhat see your view here. If someone focuses on this entity at the expense of human intervention then it can cause harm. There are some religious groups out there that tell their adherents to shun modern medicine. Others might just get complacent and not do anything to help because they think "God will take care of it". However, I think 99.9% of religious people out there know the difference between praying and seeking medical help when necessary (the tragic stories about kids dying because parents don't believe in medicine make up a minuscule number of religious followers out there.

The book of James even has a warning about this kind of thing. In chapter 2 he writes about how we should treat our fellow brothers and sisters. He says that if we see someone in distress (no food or clothing) and we say "I wish you well, be safe and warm" but do nothing to help then we are just hypocrites. The context of this passage is about how our faith and our works should go hand in hand. But let's say we see a brother or sister in need of medical help - what if we just say "I'll pray for you brother" and then leave them sick and still in need? I would think this the same thing - if they are in need of medical help, then find them medical aid. God gave us the ability to create medicine, why wouldn't we use it?

Just my thoughts,

[Magicjax]

BM is correct in what kind of situations I have in mind. Notice in my last post I used the term "blind faith". By that I meant putting all control of the outcome into the entity such as god.

We all have read about examples of this. Theres been a lot of talk lately about some churches recommending people to stop speaking professional medical help and that prayer is all they need to cure a deadly illness. A public ally known example in recent years is the "Exorcism of Emily Rose" (Annelise Michel). It's the times when people think "I'm not worried and I'm not going to take action. God will take care of me. No matter when the outcome I'll know it's gods plan". These are the kinds of things that can make prayer dangerous.

Now, on the other hand. I also see the benefit in the belief in a god after tragity hits. I'm not saying god is the only way of finding this comfort. But I do understand the effects it can have to believe in god in those hard times. After the loss of a loved one the concept of a god can fill many voids. It can be a focus of blame. A void to express thoughts and feelings. A thought of "I don't understand why but I have to believe there is a reason and I hope the one that does understand will tell me some day".

But again. If you don't have god to turn to for all these things. Then a friend, loved one, pet, diary, etc… can also provide these same effects if the person really opens their feelings. That's where the power cones from anyway.

I just thought of a great example. A tragic occurance but one that demonstrates what I'm trying to say. In my early teens one of my best friends lost his father. Now my friend was very vocal about how he couldn't stand his father. I was young then too so I just agreed with what he said. But I knew his father wasn't abusive or anything. He was just strict. But my friend didn't even cry when his father died. That us until about 2 months later. We where just hanging out and all of the sudden he broke down. Told me all his thoughts and feelings. He was crying hard as he told me how much he misses his father. How he understands why he was so strict. How his father was a good father and never did anything to hurt anyone. After his break down. We where able to ease the tension by doing what teenagers do. Pick at each other for what just happened and get a laugh out of it.

I was so honored that he chose me to open these thoughts to. He has brothers and sister and many family members and friends. But he chose me. This suggests trust and respect.

My point in sharing this story is that I believe this is a better way then speaking to a god. Yes, I know religious people can have the same experience with their friend too as well as their god. But when comparing the benefits of the two (friend and god). I can't see why anyone would prefer god. God can't speak back comforting words. Can't give a shoulder to cry on. Can't give a hug. Can't laugh with them after the break down occurs (I love laughter through tears). Can't talk about it until the one that needs comforting is finished talking about it.

Basically. I don't hate religion. I just don't think it's the best option. I honestly believe the world will be a better place without it. But, we have to start making better use of the other options which we know without a doubt is here with us. Mainly each other.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Magicjax

[Magicjax]

By the way. Thanks for the thoughts on my sister. She's at the moment in the hospital again. I'm not sure exactly why yet. I came home to a note saying that she had to go to emergency and are running tests. That she seems fine right now but they'll call me as soon as they know anything. She's had this brain tumor for almost 5 years now. They can't remove it. She's 7 years older then me but only 4'10". And she's stronger then anyone I've ever meet. She even still works. Never p*** her off. LOL

Anyway. Thanks again.

[Beckys_Mom]

BM is correct in what kind of situations I have in mind. Notice in my last post I used the term "blind faith". By that I meant putting all control of the outcome into the entity such as god.

Well yes I figured it was obvious that it would be one of the main things that is proven to be most dangerous

[eight bits]

Go Jackson's sister!

OK, then it looks like we've all blundered onto the same page. I wonder sometimes about people's assessment of the capabilities and intentions, especially the intentions, of the god(s) they consult in times of distress. The danger, then, apparently resides in the overboard assessment.

In fairness to theists, though, I also notice that many devout people do not adopt a "hand full of gimme, mouth full of much obliged" stance to their divinities. They ask for help, in whatever measure the god wishes to help them.

I wonder, in an idle way, if we toted up the deaths because of overestimation of god(s)' willingness to intervene, and subtracted off the deaths prevented by, say, people gaining the fortitude through prayer-for-help to stay the course in some aggressive therapy, whether the net death toll would be positive or negative.

[markdohle]

I don't think religion started from fear, but came from the experiences that our ancestors had on a regular basis, that are perhaps coming to light in this day and age. NDEs come to mind. It is easier to reduce ultimate reality something less than we are, but if the reality called the void is personal, loving.... what then? It can be scary, relating to the infinite that actually responds and created us for a reason. I often think this life is a womb and all the pain and choices we make are part of the birthing process that we are all a part of. Love is the deepest longing of the human heart, so deep that we often find that nothing can fill that 'void'.

Language is diffiuclt and limited, though it is all we have. For instances, I can say that "God does not exist", for existence means standing apart, or I can say that "God is nothing", since God is No-Thing. So to call God the void, may be closer to the truth than say the idols many believers have, but it can point to somthing greater, not just some inner emptiness that leads to peace and oblivion. We all as we age hopefully let go of false images of the infinite, but atheism is not the answer for me, too easy in my opinion.

peace

mark