For what reason?

[Carolyn]

I wish to know something, it has been on my mind since I was 12 and I no longer believed in the Christian God known as Yahweh (Yasuwa or Jesus) whatever you wish to call it. So hey is my request, can someone explain in a logically and reasonable way how someone could believe in a god(s). I wish to know. I would also like to know the exact reasoning behind said belief, and whither or not said person who believes in said god(s) has actually done any research about said belief. I will gladly explain what I believe if any asks of it.

[Janet_Girl]

For me it is all about the wonder of life, in general.  Things are just to beautiful to be random.  I also no longer believe in the Christian version of things.  Multiple gods seem to make more sense to me, I am Wiccan.

And I don't blame my gods for the trouble in the world, as they do.  It isn't a matter of 'It's God's will'.  That is so much a cop out.

But man has always believed in something of a higher power to explain things.  Even atheists believe in a higher power, even if it is only their own mind and power over their own life.

Janet

[finewine]

[...] Even atheists believe in a higher power, even if it is only their own mind and power over their own life.

Nah, we just don't believe in gods. Some atheists may behave like arrogant, patronising arseholes but that's not because they're atheists, it's just because they're arseholes.

[KaiTheLast]

There's hundred's of simple and comple reasons. They dont know what their purpose is in life, or for being here. And the belief in a deity, and of a Great Plan, gives them hope. Gives them a sense, that maybe there is a reason to exist.

Another good reason, and one of the most commonly used anti-atheist points, is that the universe, is not random. We, humans, are born with 2 arms/legs, 5 fingers/toes, a 2 hands/feet, and a head and torso. 99% of us anyway, theres still a lotta birth defects and such resulting in lesser/greater quantity's. This leads them to beleive that we HAD to be made that way, as the theory of evolution would make those numbers completly random, based on their oft times limited, or schewd understanding of the theory.

Probably the biggest reason though, is the most primal, and powerful emotion known to all the animal kingdom. Fear of death, and the survival instinct. When these people think of death, it's terrafiying to them. The thought of there being nothing after this life ends is hoorific. And these religions give the promise of a continued life after death, or of a whole new life.

Another, more extreme reason, is that it's what they have been taught since childhood, by religous extremists, so it's all they know, and any attempts to say otherwise are stopped by said parents.

Still others lack the ability to make their own decisions, often finding too much choice daunting. Religion once again conviently, offers the solution. They are told to follow specific lifestyle choices, which pleases their indecisive minds.

Alas, i could go on for hours on this issue, with hundreds more viable reasons why people belive. I myself, do not, and pity those who so blindly follow a religion for any of those or other reasons.

[Celia]

. . . I will gladly explain what I believe if any asks of it.

I would be happy to see this explanation, Carolyn.  I don't suppose I could technically qualify as a believer.  I think the closest descriptive term for myself in this context is "nonatheistic theological noncognitivist".  I don't think that it's meaningful to speak of the existence or nonexistence of God.  Yet, at least a small amount of my experience might include what I would describe as mystical awareness - and I consider myself to be beyond mere theism, let alone atheism.  If you were to press me on the logic or reason behind this, there would be none forthcoming, but I might tactfully ask whether you were confusing your eating utensils for your food.

In the meantime, though, enjoy the following out-of-context quote:

. . . What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it. How therefore wouldest thou speak of that which thou canst not comprehend?
. . . .

—St. Augustine

-Celia

[Tammy Hope]

That's a question that would take an encyclopedia to answer.

I won't even attempt a complete answer but only a couple of "food for thought" concepts. also I preface to say that this is not specific to the Christian/Bible concept of God...I'd apply it broadly to any concept of God except to say that there has to be a "top dog" for one of them to reply, even if you believe in multiple gods.

Point one - mostly what Janet said. I have a lot of trouble with the concept of complete randomness having the appearance of order...it seems to me much more reasonable that there actually IS order. Design presumes a designer (or designers). That doesn't have to stand in opposition to natural law or evolution either, BTW.
(as an aside on this point, I do not subscribe, even as a Christian, to the notion that everything happens because God wills it - rather, it happens because he chooses to allow it which is different)

Second point - if there is no higher being, then from whence cometh morality or ethics?

In other words, who defines what is right and wrong?

It seems to me that the only logical answer to that is that the strong make the rules. Whether the strong is one person, or the majority of persons. The logical implication of that is that if the majority approve of child sacrifice and cannibalism, then these things are moral and ethical. if they are not, by what logic do you argue that they are not?

You can't point to the concept even of "human rights" because if there is no higher power, then humans have only the rights that humans decide they have. Either every man is an ethic unto himself, or the strong make the rules.

You can't point to "natural" rules or morality because humans around the world reach different conclusions about the same action (take the question of abortion for an obvious example, or consider the matter of what a woman has a "right" to do in various given societies)

In short, if there is no super-human authority, then the only way you can control me doing whatever I want to do is force, or the threat of force.

I'm fine if you want to acknowledge that "the strong make the rules" and there is no absolutely immoral action....if that's the world you see around you that I'm perfectly ok with that. But, IMO, you are fooling yourself if you believe that anything is absolutely and always wrong and yet do not believe in a higher power.

[lisagurl]

We only know what we experience through many means. Even our senses lie to us. Using reason and empirical evidence leaves lots of questions. Morals and ethics are only common sense for survival of human kind. You do not need a God but for many the unanswered questions are more comforting if you call the unknown God and add wishful thinking to it.

[finewine]

[...]
Point one - mostly what Janet said. I have a lot of trouble with the concept of complete randomness having the appearance of order...it seems to me much more reasonable that there actually IS order. Design presumes a designer (or designers). That doesn't have to stand in opposition to natural law or evolution either, BTW.

Dawkins does a pretty good job at addressing all of these, and other, questions in "The God Delusion".  In very brief summary, these particular questions of randomness, emergence and origins are founded on some huge assumptions about what is actually random, the nature of statistical probabilities and so forth.  Rather than get into a long and detailed scientific debate (which is pointless except with very specific audiences), let's assume that we have know theories at all and just don't know.  Even with an "I don't know" statement, it's still illogical to bridge a knowledge gap with god.  What's wrong with just being agnostic about it and admitting we don't know?

Second point - if there is no higher being, then from whence cometh morality or ethics?

In other words, who defines what is right and wrong?

Ah...this is a very frequently asserted non-problem.   I touch on this issue back in this earlier post.

First, and most simply, we cannot interpret religious "moral" teachings literally or we'd be doing savage injustices to each other and the usual answer to this is that one needs to "interpret" them - which simply raises the question about where ones moral frame of reference comes from?  It must be *outside* religion to interpret it, surely?

Secondly, as per my earlier post, why on earth would Abraham dare to challenge god's morality if it was an absolute truth (see the post for detail)?  Only extremists deal in absolutes...and that never goes well.

It seems to me that the only logical answer to that is that the strong make the rules. Whether the strong is one person, or the majority of persons. The logical implication of that is that if the majority approve of child sacrifice and cannibalism, then these things are moral and ethical. if they are not, by what logic do you argue that they are not?

Morality evolves as society evolves.  Things once considered entirely moral (sociologically and religiously) in the past are now recognised as immoral.

You can't point to the concept even of "human rights" because if there is no higher power, then humans have only the rights that humans decide they have. Either every man is an ethic unto himself, or the strong make the rules.

Yeah - bummer having to take responsibility for one's own right or wrong decisions, huh?

In short, if there is no super-human authority, then the only way you can control me doing whatever I want to do is force, or the threat of force.

And threats of burning eternally in a pit of fiery damnation is not coercive at all!   Look, if you're decision to do what is currently defined as the "morally right thing" is decided by threats from people or deities, what difference does it make?  Do the right thing because you believe it to be correct not because you've got a gun to your head or because an invisible sky fairy threatens you.

Now, I don't have a problem with what you belief or your choice of religion...and I'm certainly not going to insult you over it.  It's entirely up to you.  However, if someone really believes absolute morality & ethics comes from god/religion then what's stopping them from asserting that framework on everyone else?  I would hope we can all think of places in the world where absolute religious authority is coerced onto the people.  After all, what's the harm in "imposing the ultimate morality"?  Scary.

You see, while we argue for religious tolerance, I do think that ardent believers have no idea how terrifying some of their worldviews are to those of us who don't share them - precisely because they really do have a tendency to spill out of your intrinsic world and start intruding into mine, even when it wasn't the original intention.

But we're not too dissimilar.  You're probably an atheist too.  The chances are that you honestly don't believe in virtually all the gods on the List Of Deities either. The only difference is that I go one god further

[Tammy Hope]

Let me say before responding that I do not want to further enhance an unwanted reputation for arguing, and i didn't contribute an answer here in order to debate them...she just asked "Why?" so I offered my whys.

That said, a few points need a toch of clarity.

Dawkins does a pretty good job at addressing all of these, and other, questions in "The God Delusion".  In very brief summary, these particular questions of randomness, emergence and origins are founded on some huge assumptions about what is actually random, the nature of statistical probabilities and so forth.  Rather than get into a long and detailed scientific debate (which is pointless except with very specific audiences), let's assume that we have know theories at all and just don't know.  Even with an "I don't know" statement, it's still illogical to bridge a knowledge gap with god.  What's wrong with just being agnostic about it and admitting we don't know?

Ive read a lot of atheistic writing which I found compelling. Sadly none of it was ever something written by Dawkins. It's a mystery to me why he's held in the high regard he seems to hold.

Ah...this is a very frequently asserted non-problem.   I touch on this issue back in this earlier post.

First, and most simply, we cannot interpret religious "moral" teachings literally or we'd be doing savage injustices to each other and the usual answer to this is that one needs to "interpret" them - which simply raises the question about where ones moral frame of reference comes from?  It must be *outside* religion to interpret it, surely?

first of all, in the context of my point, ALL religions can have it wrong (in fact, I believe that all DO have it wrong to a greater or lesser extent)

suggesting that if there is in fact an "absolute" morality it must come from a super-human source is NOT a suggestion that religion has quantified that code.

Secondly, as per my earlier post, why on earth would Abraham dare to challenge god's morality if it was an absolute truth (see the post for detail)?  Only extremists deal in absolutes...and that never goes well.

There are theological speculations on that which I am not prepared to tangent into as i don't care to have that discussion. I'll only say that for me, I consider the OT record to be one of "teaching stories" designed to communicate some information God wanted us to understand, NOT a literal record of a literal true event. Further, I believe that such stories were designed first and foremost to teach the original audience...and the hearers who would first hear that story had a particular understanding of the nature of "Gods" and the story is designed to speak to them where they are, so to speak.

Finally, just because God would be the author of absolute truth doesn't necessarily mean that his every action is one designed to convey some absolute. there are many instances in the Bible of God "changing his mind" - I do not mean to imply that if the Biblical God exists, that every thing about him is absolute - in fact, the very existance of a "fallen" creation would preclude that. Only that any absolute that does exist must originate from some source higher than men.

Morality evolves as society evolves.  Things once considered entirely moral (sociologically and religiously) in the past are now recognised as immoral.

so at the end of the day, morality is only what humans say it is.

does this mean that morality changed (i.e. for an Aztec it wasn't at all immoral to sacrifice his child to the sun god?) or does that mean that morality is absolute but our understanding of morality has changed?

Yeah - bummer having to take responsibility for one's own right or wrong decisions, huh?

I'm not sure I understand this response in the context of the quote. This isn't about responsibility, it's about who decides. If I believe that it is perfectly moral and ethical for me to have sex with a 14 year old girl, who is to say I'm wrong? If I am not wrong, then there is no "responsibility" to take. If I am wrong, then obviously I'll bear the burden (responsibility) for my choice that society places upon me.

That's not the question - the question is do I make my own rules, or does the "sword" of the society make the rules for me? if the former, well and good (in terms of the question of whether or not there is an absolute morality) but if it's the latter, then the only real absolute is "might makes right"

and, by the way, if "might makes right" then when 70% of the people say gay marriage is immoral, then for all practical purposes, gay marriage is immoral.

so do we really want to go there?

And threats of burning eternally in a pit of fiery damnation is not coercive at all!

Sure it is. Absolutely. the difference being that if God exists (any God who is responsible for the existance of mankind, not just the Christian version) then he is entitled to set the rules and judge the violations and dole out the punishments. Rank hath it's privlidges.

it's not at all the same thing as one human being lording power over another.

Look, if you're decision to do what is currently defined as the "morally right thing" is decided by threats from people or deities, what difference does it make?  Do the right thing because you believe it to be correct not because you've got a gun to your head or because an invisible sky fairy threatens you.

If I do the right thing as I see it and you consider it an immoral thing and the law is on your side, then what I did is immoral, no matter what i thought - if in fact might makes right.

the question before us here is not "what shall I do?" the question is "What is moral?"

there can only be 4 answers:
1. There is no "moral"
2. "Moral" is whatever each one thinks is moral for him or herself
3. "Moral" is what those with power say it is
4. "Moral" derives from a non-human source

In the first two cases, I can do whatever I want and you have no right to forbid me, in the third case, whatever the law saws is wrong is wrong (which puts us in a particularly bad place)

Whether or not "God" gets his way by coercion is utterly beside the point (albeit, he doesn't in the New Covenant but that's another thread) - the only point is - "What is moral?" (or ethical if you prefer)

Now, I don't have a problem with what you belief or your choice of religion...and I'm certainly not going to insult you over it.  It's entirely up to you.  However, if someone really believes absolute morality & ethics comes from god/religion then what's stopping them from asserting that framework on everyone else?

Believing that one of those absolute morals is the free agency of the soul

If the religions doesn't, in fact, believe in that, then he might well indeed try to impose morality by force of law (as in the State Church of years past or Islamic  "Republics" of today) but when that happens, the religious person has defaulted to "might makes right" which is exactly where you are if there was no God involved.

In fact, whenever a strongarm government claims falsely to be rulling in the name of God (which would be all of them, in my view, in the last 2,000 years) then that government is by definition practicing "might makes right" while using the pretense of God's will as cover.

  I would hope we can all think of places in the world where absolute religious authority is coerced onto the people.  After all, what's the harm in "imposing the ultimate morality"?  Scary.

I absolutely agree. Again, the assertion that an absolute morality does exist and that it originates with God/s does NOT in any logical sense justify ANY human agency appemting to impose that morality by force.

for two reasons -
1. the assertion does not include an assertion that any human or group of himans CAN in fact KNOW with 100% certainty what the absolute moral code IS
2. A god who WANTED an absolute moral code imposed absolutely - would do it himself.

You see, while we argue for religious tolerance, I do think that ardent believers have no idea how terrifying some of their worldviews are to those of us who don't share them - precisely because they really do have a tendency to spill out of your intrinsic world and start intruding into mine, even when it wasn't the original intention.

they spill out because humans are weak and fallable creatures.

but I would submit to you that you have no more to fear from the over-zealous application of religion than you would have had to fear from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pot (to name just a few)
People doing bad things to other people is NOT a function of having a religious worldview, its a function of the human race. Just because SOME ill-behaved humans chose to use religion (as opposed to some more secular worldview) as an excuse for their actions proves nothing for or against the existance of God or the truth of any faith system.

But we're not too dissimilar.  You're probably an atheist too.  The chances are that you honestly don't believe in virtually all the gods on the List Of Deities either. The only difference is that I go one god further

To be perfectly frank, I don't believe in the being commonly referred to as "The Christian God" either. That caricature is simply the closest thing I know of to representing the being I do believe in.

[finewine]

Let me say before responding that I do not want to further enhance an unwanted reputation for arguing, and i didn't contribute an answer here in order to debate them...she just asked "Why?" so I offered my whys.

You don't have that reputation with me, dear.  As far as I'm concerned, this is a respectful discussion between to friends with different views.  Speaking only for myself, I have absolutely no personal problem with you or your beliefs, even if I don't share the latter.

That said, a few points need a toch of clarity.Ive read a lot of atheistic writing which I found compelling. Sadly none of it was ever something written by Dawkins. It's a mystery to me why he's held in the high regard he seems to hold.

Well I don't know what specific issues you have but most of the criticisms of Dawkins' writings is usually based on a generic dislike precisely because of the cold logic and eloquence he displays.  It's rare that anyone tackles a particular line of reasoning, usually because it's hard to argue with rational analysis (some try but usually end up looking rather daft...except to the choir for whom they preach).

The biggest problem for both atheists and non-atheists alike is that they fall into the same trap of self-reinforcement from incestuous sources.  Creationists, for example, continually assert the same well-refuted arguments time and time again because they all draw material from the same parochial creationist sources.  Many atheists make the same mistake.

Here's the universal scenario.  Both camps want to find a great argument to stitch it to those pesky [atheists|creationists] so they google around etc..  They think they've found a website that makes a "killer argument" but, of course, they're just regurgitating some very stale and often erroneous argument that's been thrashed to death a million times over.  Naturally, because the argument they've found aligns with their worldview, they don't think to question the veracity of the argument.  I try very hard not to fall into that trap (and Dawkins tends not to make that mistake either, which is one reason I quite like his approach).

first of all, in the context of my point, ALL religions can have it wrong (in fact, I believe that all DO have it wrong to a greater or lesser extent)

Laura, this is why I suggest that the faithful enjoy their faith, draw strength from it but don't try to rationalize it.  The whole "pick-and-choose" approach of selecting some parts as "true" and dismissing the logically flawed parts as "wrong" or subject to interpretation is, in itself, a logical fallacy.

There are theological speculations on that which I am not prepared to tangent into as i don't care to have that discussion. I'll only say that for me, I consider the OT record to be one of "teaching stories" designed to communicate some information God wanted us to understand, NOT a literal record of a literal true event. [...]

Ok, let's chalk this inconvenient contradiction up to "interpretation" as a teaching. Well, what does it teach?  Whether it is literal or parable, it still profoundly illustrates *human* judgement in argument with god.  Ignoring that glaring aspect to this "teaching" takes some pretty determined mental blinkers, wouldn't you say?

the question before us here is not "what shall I do?" the question is "What is moral?"

there can only be 4 answers: [...]

That's a bold assertion, given that philosophers have been wrestling with this question for some time (your list and subsequent verbiage neglects the possibility that this is a hugely subjective area with considerable overlap among the four options you listed).

[...] the only point is - "What is moral?" (or ethical if you prefer)Believing that one of those absolute morals is the free agency of the soul

No!  You're (hopefully inadvertantly) playing intellectual sleight of hand here.  The point of argument here is not on the philosophical origins and emergence of morality, it's about the arbitrary definition of a fundamental frame of reference...in this case "god".  Your whole argument is based on your intrinsic belief system

Morality is a mutable and highly subjective point of view, as clearly demonstrated by the change in moral concensus over history and between societies.  Whatever your philosophical stance, it's clearly not a set of static parameters!

but I would submit to you that you have no more to fear from the over-zealous application of religion than you would have had to fear from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pot (to name just a few)

This is another logical fallacy.  The wrongs of others don't diminish the wrongs of the one.  The "lesser of two evils" (assuming we agree on the lesser) doesn't automatically equate to "good"

Ultimately, this discussion may well be futile because faith requires assumptions outside the scope of objective, rational analysis.

Hugs...
J.

[Miniar]

Here is my why:

I don't believe in creation, or that gods give us purpose.
I believe in reincarnation, not in a "happily ever after" type afterlife, and I don't understand why anyone, ever, would believe in a hell.

I believe in the existence of souls, and in the existence of "energy" (life-force, subtle body, chi, whatever you want to call it).
I believe that "will" can effect energy and that is what we refer to when we say "magic".

Put all this together, stir, and add one more thing. I believe that a skilled energy manipulator can create servitors or egregors (simple, energy based entities, that fulfill roles). I have touched items that contain egregors and been amazed at what I feel. (This was conducted as a carefully constructed experiment to test my own ability to simply read energy. There were about 20 items, two of which had an egregor. I did not know numbers, nor types, of egregors and would simply pick up and hold onto each item, while alone in a room, and write down what I felt/picked up. Then the energy-worker that had constructed the egregors came back in and we compared what I had written and what he had written when he set the experiment up. Accuracy was astonishingly high.)

So, I consider it possible, if not probable, that the continued faith of a large mass of people in a god can result in the deity forming as an energy based construct. This construct isn't "all powerful", "all knowing" nor "Perfect" in any way and in theory it can fade out and stop existing if forgotten. It may be able to "Help" you but it's ability is limited.

I also believe that what we believe holds a psychological importance. That our faith in a higher power can be a vital psychological tool for our continued mental health and survival as individuals.

Then there's the simple fact that the words exist. Like it or not, "god" exists as a concept at the very least.

So yeah... doesn't matter which came first, god or man. Doesn't matter if it's just a concept or a psychological defense mechanism, or an egregor... I think they're there.. all of 'em

[tekla]

I have a lot of trouble with the concept of complete randomness having the appearance of order...it seems to me much more reasonable that there actually IS order. Design presumes a designer (or designers).

Hell of a presumption there.  First, the human mind is ordered to find patterns even when none exist, so what is perceived as being 'order' may just be your brain sorting out some stuff from Chaos, and putting its ducks in a row and in a very human sort of way, casually ignoring the stuff that does not fit.

That doesn't have to stand in opposition to natural law or evolution either
Yeah, I never quite got the whole butthurt that some Christians seem to have over Darwin, nothing he wrote presumed - much less outright said - there is no god.  Of course as a friend of mine always claimed, they just hated science and Darwin was the last science they could understand, if they could grasp the developments in late 19th and 20th Century physics they would really trip out.

Because at its most fundamental level, modern physics does allude to the idea that in fact, a lot of things are random.  Well, not necessarily random, but more like probability.  Einstein was wrong, god does play dice with the universe.  That given an infinite universe, there are an infinite number of possibilities.  We see patterns because our minds developed to do that, to make some sort of order out of chaos, but what we see is still pretty much chaos as our patterns do not change the outcomes. It only sorts the possibility, and at that, can only perceive them relative to the range of our senses.

That you would move from that point, and seeing that it would only be 'reasonable' to assume there is a designer, then how do people get to stories and myths that are pretty unreasonable on the face of them, as their fall back position?

from whence cometh morality or ethics
Well first of all, those are not the same things, and perhaps not even two different sides of the same coin.  Morality is presumed to be immortal, ethics changeable.  But I think you can tie a lot of that to self interest.  I think any reasonable group of people can, and would arrive at the same basic rules of morality, and they have.  Regardless of culture, religion, time or place, most societies have prohibitions against killing other members for example.

If there were some 'super human' causation for this, why the widespread disparity among cultures for other things often tied to morality?  Was god 'fooling' the other cultures into believing something that was not true?

I think you are only seeing a very narrow slice and then projecting onto the whole.  First, its Ethnocentric.  What you claim is only a Western perspective.  In China - the longest running stable culture - none of the traditional 'religions' really have a Western god concept at all. 

In the three main ones, Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism there is no god.  There is no call that 'We are sinners and need to repent and get right with god."  There is only 'right relationship' with ourselves, our family, each other and the material world.  There is no 'other world.'  No heaven or hell.  They are not centered on praise and worship, but on stability and harmony (again, with ourselves, others and the material world.)

Offerings to the Buddha are not meant as intercessions, but a path to discover our own Buddha nature.  Buddha was not a god, but just a human who is venerated, not worshiped (and those are two very different deals) for being the first to find the way (or Tao if you will) to stability and harmony, that perfect state of no wind, or Nirvana. (That is what Nirvana means, literately 'no wind' - no change, no restlessness, just perfect being, and being in the here and now, not in some place in the future, like heaven is.  For them, heaven is a place on earth, and really, a place in your own head and life.)

So I guess, I'd ask how China could be so stable for so long without any concept of god, no higher power, no imposed moral order?  What you seem to see as impossible without a god, seems to have happened longer and stronger in exactly that manner.

And China is a pretty good example of something else.  Civilization developed in China about the same time as it did in the West, but unlike the West, China preserved it, and has a much deeper understanding of it.  They have a 5,000 history, while in the West, we have 5,000 years of civilization, but really only 2,000 years of history as everything was systematically purged, destroyed and eradicated by the early church and its followers. Heck, what we have of the old order, the writings of the Greeks and Romans we only have because Islam preserved them or as in the case of Egypt, because the desert covered them up and protected them.

[NicholeW.]

For what reason? Because I am held in the arms of Universe. Call Her what you wish. I prefer "her" because "her" rings with my own "mystical experiences": worlds of green and yellow amid a drowsing walk in the woods or the infinite beauty of the sound, feel and look of water tumbling down a hill/mountainside through rhodedendron and laurel, beech, oak and maple, stately conifers.

The ripening of fruit, vegetables and grains -- or even better, perhaps, grass, that is the forbearer of that grain.

The sudden and ominous gathering of clouds at midday into the darkness amid lightning of the afternoon and the fierce falling water and the wind howling like the largest wolf-pack ever existant. The shine of sun and the reflection of beauty that's the moon. The ceaseless rocking of the sea and the rush or meander of rivers from the Hudson to the Spree and Danube, the Rhone, Ebro and Sipsey.

The thrust of the Alps muted beneath by huge, high meadows where life abounds and the snow is so close you can touch it in July and August.

The amazing congruity of bees I almost never see anymore and the slow drowsing buzz of their hives as technically intricate and more rationally laid-out than any human city: from Istanbul to Paris to Chicago to San Francisco that I have ever seen. The nearness of which was once an amazingly refreshing contemplation and occasion for both a nap and a mystical awe that something so small and seemingly unimportant carried on it's wings the flowers and seeds of every plant generation within miles of the hive. Making, at the same time, for a rather restful doze beneath the sun and amid the drying grass of a meadow.

Why Mother? Well, what else can give birth in my limited mind? Universe, Earth, Sun -- all Mother and I Her daughter-child released into Eden.

Design? Well, a car is surely designed: no matter how clueless Benz and Duryea may have been when they began to live they somehow managed design by the time they imagined carriages without horses. And was Henry Ford's design to remove life and replace it with means of moving his billions of dream-cars into every corner of the earth? I dunno. Don't really care.

Is Universe designed or is She just as alive as me and the largest being beyond my size I am capable of realizing and appreciating? Again, I haven't the capacity to know, just as, I suspect, that the ant cannot know that my foot is going to crush it accidently when I walk across his path.

There's so very much that's beyond us, so very much we can commune with if we find the time and don't allow our fear of being alone and insignificant to cow us into fear and the making of a Goddess, or god, that looks and thinks and acts exactly as we do.

That may not be comfortable enough for everyone, but being in-charge or all-understanding has never been the hallmark of this girl-child of the Mother I hear and speak with in the birch grove and the meadow, under the canopy of a hemlock forest or in the closeness and tangle of a patch of rhodedendron. But speak and feel Her touch I do. And even bloody in tooth and claw, I find Her comfort whereever I walk, ride or sit.

It's enough. That I don't understand is also enough, as long as I can appreciate being who I am: human and alive, for now. 

[FairyGirl]

For what reason? Because I am held in the arms of Universe. Call Her what you wish. I prefer "her" because "her" rings with my own "mystical experiences": worlds of green and yellow amid a drowsing walk in the woods or the infinite beauty of the sound, feel and look of water tumbling down a hill/mountainside through rhodedendron and laurel, beech, oak and maple, stately conifers.

The ripening of fruit, vegetables and grains -- or even better, perhaps, grass, that is the forbearer of that grain.

The sudden and ominous gathering of clouds at midday into the darkness amid lightning of the afternoon and the fierce falling water and the wind howling like the largest wolf-pack ever existant. The shine of sun and the reflection of beauty that's the moon. The ceaseless rocking of the sea and the rush or meander of rivers from the Hudson to the Spree and Danube, the Rhone, Ebro and Sipsey.

The thrust of the Alps muted beneath by huge, high meadows where life abounds and the snow is so close you can touch it in July and August.

The amazing congruity of bees I almost never see anymore and the slow drowsing buzz of their hives as technically intricate and more rationally laid-out than any human city: from Istanbul to Paris to Chicago to San Francisco that I have ever seen. The nearness of which was once an amazingly refreshing contemplation and occasion for both a nap and a mystical awe that something so small and seemingly unimportant carried on it's wings the flowers and seeds of every plant generation within miles of the hive. Making, at the same time, for a rather restful doze beneath the sun and amid the drying grass of a meadow.

Why Mother? Well, what else can give birth in my limited mind? Universe, Earth, Sun -- all Mother and I Her daughter-child released into Eden.

Design? Well, a car is surely designed: no matter how clueless Benz and Duryea may have been when they began to live they somehow managed design by the time they imagined carriages without horses. And was Henry Ford's design to remove life and replace it with means of moving his billions of dream-cars into every corner of the earth? I dunno. Don't really care.

Is Universe designed or is She just as alive as me and the largest being beyond my size I am capable of realizing and appreciating? Again, I haven't the capacity to know, just as, I suspect, that the ant cannot know that my foot is going to crush it accidently when I walk across his path.

There's so very much that's beyond us, so very much we can commune with if we find the time and don't allow our fear of being alone and insignificant to cow us into fear and the making of a Goddess, or god, that looks and thinks and acts exactly as we do.

That may not be comfortable enough for everyone, but being in-charge or all-understanding has never been the hallmark of this girl-child of the Mother I hear and speak with in the birch grove and the meadow, under the canopy of a hemlock forest or in the closeness and tangle of a patch of rhodedendron. But speak and feel Her touch I do. And even bloody in tooth and claw, I find Her comfort whereever I walk, ride or sit.

It's enough. That I don't understand is also enough, as long as I can appreciate being who I am: human and alive, for now.

Yeah, that.

[tekla]

I think that one of my main problems with traditional Western religion is that (and I think in direct contrast to the 3,000 years leading up to it) that it wants man (or people if you prefer) to see themselves as apart from that, rather than as a part of it.

[NicholeW.]

I think that one of my main problems with traditional Western religion is that (and I think in direct contrast to the 3,000 years leading up to it) that it wants man (or people if you prefer) to see themselves as apart from that, rather than as a part of it.

The problem, I believe, that arises when some people decide that it's a grand notion to transplant a desert volcano-god, masculinist, closed-social milieu social construction to places where there are no deserts, men are frightened of their shadows and the approach of death, and people in general require surety rather than mystery as they contemplate their notion that they are insignificant as that ant. 

Kinda like trans-planting kudzu from Japan to Alabama. The natural anti-pathetic predators are not around to keep it in check. Grows like Topsy!

Plus, the guys see the harem and think: "Wow, what a concept! And our fathers have been allowing those girls to just make their own decisions about who to bed and when and whose child someone is or is not and pass along wealth through women rather than us! Let's import this stuff here!"

But, that's just lil ole me and my limited understanding. So, there's prolly some other reason, like Yah's grand design, instead.

[tekla]

Had it remained as just one of the 'mystery religion cults' that is was in the early days, just one choice among the many that Rome offered it wouldn't have been so bad - it was the Christianity uber alles that caused the problems. 

[NicholeW.]

Had it remained as just one of the 'mystery religion cults' that is was in the early days, just one choice among the many that Rome offered it wouldn't have been so bad - it was the Christianity uber alles that caused the problems. 

Damn that Theodocius I!! Wasn't he just too much?

Here, 1700 (oops) 1600+ years later we pay the price for his decision to make a state-religion.

Of course, mustn't forget one very ironic occurrence in all of that: the people who began that state-religion way over in the deserts of the Negev and Judea were established by law for the first time to be less-than and in danger of being exterminated totally when the religion that sprang from their own became the state-religion of Rome.

[tekla]

Is that akin to the manner in which adherents of a faith that institutionalized intolerance now have to plead for a more tolerant society?

[Carolyn]

I would be happy to see this explanation, Carolyn.

First and foremost I'm agnostic, now moving on to what I believe.

1/The Scientific method is as of currently the best way to find out what is true and what is false.
2/I want to see evidence in something before I will believe any of it.
3/From what we know of energy is that it cannot be created nor destroyed and thus for the most part reincarnation (of the energy not the mind) is true. Hence energy is transmigrated from one being or form to another or perhaps it disperses in the area in which the person's life ended.
4/Life is a gift, but it is not a super natural gift
5/Everything we do means absolutely nothing in the hind sight of things, for one day all we know will cease to exist, however everything we do while we exist matters for it is the moment we exist in this world.
6/Good and Evil are subjective and thus they don't exist.
7/All forms of religion are viruses on the human race, it's okay to believe in a deity if you must, but to believe in any man-made religion is a fools act.
8/I don't know is a better answer than claiming to know what happens after we die.
9/Last but not least, everyone on this world has unlimited rights or no rights at all. I lean towards unlimited rights.

I will explain more at a later date.