Religious People Rant


Recommended Posts

Hi everybody,

Just a little rant tonight.

I am getting pretty sick of religious people, mainly because not a single one of them actually lives by the code they 'attack' us with... I was going to try to make that line sound cool, but it's a rant. Screw it.

Anyways, today I was in a conversation with a mormon, who is usually not too bad, and I was the recipient of a statement that is both hilarious and horrific. Essentially, it was "you need to stop swearing around me because I'm really losing respect for you." HAH!

Recipe for this type of awful statement:

(1) Utilize a set of moral standards (which you apparently live by) in attacking an action.

(2) Immediately act in a way (judging other people) described as evil by the same standards.

Ugh. I've been thinking a lot about the claim that religion is child abuse (I think it was Richard Dawkins that I heard that from). I completely agree. What a way to subtly ruin a person's childhood, and if successful, their adult life too!

... anybody have a method for forgetting that we're surrounded by such people?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody,

Just a little rant tonight.

I am getting pretty sick of religious people, mainly because not a single one of them actually lives by the code they 'attack' us with... I was going to try to make that line sound cool, but it's a rant. Screw it.

Anyways, today I was in a conversation with a mormon, who is usually not too bad, and I was the recipient of a statement that is both hilarious and horrific. Essentially, it was "you need to stop swearing around me because I'm really losing respect for you." HAH!

Recipe for this type of awful statement:

(1) Utilize a set of moral standards (which you apparently live by) in attacking an action.

(2) Immediately act in a way (judging other people) described as evil by the same standards.

Ugh. I've been thinking a lot about the claim that religion is child abuse (I think it was Richard Dawkins that I heard that from). I completely agree. What a way to subtly ruin a person's childhood, and if successful, their adult life too!

... anybody have a method for forgetting that we're surrounded by such people?

No Mormons have appeared at my door in many years. When they do come back I'll tell them I'll talk about anything with you, but only in the nude. That should take care of the Mormon problem for another ten years. The Christian preachers knocking on my door every Saturday for six months were hard to get rid of. I kept running them off the property but they kept coming back. It's been a year or so and I've been preacher free. It helps if you have an acre and are back from the road.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame religion for my brothers' personality disorders. It was etched into their minds that sex before marriage is a horrific crime against your soul. Within months of their first sexual encounters they were diagnosed bipolar. They are 10 years apart. God! they weren't even able to fully enjoy their first sexual encounters. I think sex ed should encourage kids to have sex. That its enjoyable. Maybe that's the case in other parts of the country but in Tennessee you get a double dose of anti-sex in School and Church.

It creates such an internal, unnatural ambivalence that people often just go fucking mad.

My older brother's life was irrevocably altered. Hopefully my other brother, who was diagnosed Dec. 2010, will be able to cope sooner.

Edited by Aristocrates
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn.

It is so easy to go off on spirituality. Effortless, really. And a lot of them deserve it, for their rigidity alone.

Now, I do know that some people don't like hearing a lot of cursing. I know that because I have a foul fucking mouth and am very good at the art of swearing, fuck yeah I am.

But, I am also a religious person, obviously--Unitarian Universalist. Crap, I did over sixty performances last year playing on various praise teams. I took the Summer off, except for playing at a pagan animal blessing coming up next week, which is just fun anyway you look at it.

Praying is a lot harder than making fun of prayer.

There are many people that pursue the spiritual path that you can't dump into this bucket, which gets created over, and over, and over (because it is easy).

So go ahead, have at it. But realize you aren't doing anything very profound. Shit, I bust on Mormons all the time. How can you not? Their founder alone--Joe, who was a goddamn psycho. I dug up metal tablets and read them through special glasses. Rightio! I'm married to one. Technically, she is a Mormon, actually, she's more along the lines of a pure pagan--that is her practice. So, is my wife an asshole, too? Am I? Just because you say so?

There are a lot of religious dicks out there. There are a lot of atheist dicks out there, too, you know? It is a non-denominational, open-source-code practice, being a ding-dong.

Need I provide you with glaring examples? Fuck's sake, they're everywhere on both sides of the fence. Here, I'll go ahead. Perigo--atheist, douchebag. Peikoff--atheist, devout douchebag. Why? Because I say so. And I do not speak alone. Call me a relativist, call it a matter of opinion, but I know a douche when I'm around one. For that matter, you can call ME a douche, for all that will get you.

So one thing we need to consider is that you don't immediately become douchebag-safe if you convert to atheism. It's just a matter of switching what flavor/scent of douche you want to be around.

Namaste,

rde

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many religious people are shockingly hypocritical.

Naturally, the fact that Christians believe in Original Sin automatically gives them an 'excuse' for not living up to their own moralities. Their moralities are impossible to live up to pretty much by definition.

And to them, this is a feature, not a bug.

If you really want to strike back at them, just deliberately violate their morality and rub it in their face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame religion for my brothers' personality disorders. It was etched into their minds that sex before marriage is a horrific crime against your soul. Within months of their first sexual encounters they were diagnosed bipolar. They are 10 years apart. God! they weren't even able to fully enjoy their first sexual encounters.

Aristocrates,

possibly you are making here a cause-effect connection between two issues where it may not apply.

It is therefore possible that your brothers may have been diagnosed as bipolar even without

having been subjected to the detrimental influeces of religious doctrine. Depression often runs in families, which could point to a genetic disposition.

But if damaging religious influence comes into play as an additional factor, this can aggravate things immensely.

The existence of term "ecceslesiogenic neurosis" shows to what extent religious doctrine can wreak havoc on an individual's psyche. A classic example is the demonization of sexuality in several religions, where this natural biologocal drive is labeled as "evil".

So while it does make sense to liberate humans from the shackles of religious doctrine here, it is also important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater in a zeal to propagate sexuality:

I think sex ed should encourage kids to have sex. That its enjoyable.

I'd use caution here with the term "encourage". Since sexuality is a biological drive, it will manifest itself anyway, and no encouragement is needed.

Encouraging kids to have sex can lead to premature sexualization; as opposed to former times where people suffered from rigid sexual morality, today we are often confronted with the opposite problem, like children watching on TV films where sexuality is openly displayed.

There exist children's beauty pageants where parents dress up their five year-old daughters in sexualizing outfits; imo this borders on child abuse.

Edited by Xray
Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame religion for my brothers' personality disorders. It was etched into their minds that sex before marriage is a horrific crime against your soul. Within months of their first sexual encounters they were diagnosed bipolar. They are 10 years apart. God! they weren't even able to fully enjoy their first sexual encounters.

Aristocrates,

possibly you are making here a cause-effect connection between two issues where it may not apply.

It is therefore possible that your brothers may have been diagnosed as bipolar even without

having been subjected to the detrimental influeces of religious doctrine. Depression often runs in families, which could point to a genetic disposition.

But if damaging religious influence comes into play as an additional factor, this can aggravate things immenensely.

The existence of term "ecceslesiogenic neurosis" shows to what extent religious doctrine can wreak havoc on an individual's psyche. A classic example is the demonization of sexuality in several religions, where this natural biologocal drive is labeled as "evil".

So while it does make sense to liberate humans from the shackles of religious doctrine here, it is also important not to throw ut the baby with the bathwater in a zeal to propagate sexuality:

I think sex ed should encourage kids to have sex. That its enjoyable.

I'd use caution here with the term "encourage". Since sexuality is a biological drive, it will manifest itself anyway, and no encouragement is needed.

Encouraging kids to have sex can lead to premature sexualization; as opposed to former times where people suffered from rigid sexual morality, today we are often confronted with the opposite problem, like children watching on TV films where sexuality is openly displayed.

There exist children's beauty pageants where parents dress up their five year-old daughters in sexualizing outfits; imo this borders on child abuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Xray makes good sense, I strongly agree with her points. Aristo, I hope you're listening open-mindedly. Bipolar disorders can be exacerbated, but not caused, by societal or religious influences. Post hoc is not propter hoc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody,

Just a little rant tonight.

I am getting pretty sick of religious people, mainly because not a single one of them actually lives by the code they 'attack' us with... I was going to try to make that line sound cool, but it's a rant. Screw it.

Anyways, today I was in a conversation with a mormon, who is usually not too bad, and I was the recipient of a statement that is both hilarious and horrific. Essentially, it was "you need to stop swearing around me because I'm really losing respect for you." HAH!

I don't see such statement as hilarious or horrific. The person merely pointed out that he was going to lose respect for you if you don't stop swearing around him.

Swearing people often come across as emotionally too upset to think clearly.

Ugh. I've been thinking a lot about the claim that religion is child abuse (I think it was Richard Dawkins that I heard that from). I completely agree. What a way to subtly ruin a person's childhood, and if successful, their adult life too!

I think Dawkins spoke of psychological child abuse.

The "freedom of religion" is often cited as a value, but this freedom does not include the freedom of children from religious indoctrination. So the parents are actually free to impose religious doctrines on their children's souls.

If granting freedom of religion were complemented by the children's right to choose their own religion (or to choose no religion at all), less problems would arise.

But when you look at doctrinary religions, the last thing they want is to encourage people to become independent thinkers. Since independent thinkers will check premises, religious doctrinary edifices will already crumble when subjected to the slighest epistemological scrutiny.

Edited by Xray
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".

Edited by Aristocrates
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".

I must admit I had not looked in which section this "Religious People Rant" thread was posted. :)

I merely looked at "Recent Topics Added" and replied right away because the subject is of interest to me.

But then where does it say that rants can't trigger an interesting discussion? That possibility always exists.

Edited by Xray
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".

Hey, I ranted out the Mormons some more for you, at least I did that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".

If you mean me and my egregious Latin, sorry. It's not my fault! I was bombarded and indoctrinated with Latin by a coercive education system at a vulnerable age and I've never really got over it.

OK, it's a rant against religion. But thinking that religion causes bipolar disorders is too much like thinking that vaccinations cause autism, to go unremarked. What's PC about calling you on a side remark about causation?

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".

Thank you.

Seriously, IT IS A RANT. Not a set of well thought-out, serious, generalized statements with the goal of promoting a profound idea... it is a rant, purely with the goal of letting loose some steam in what is likely to be a supportive environment. Now, if I came in here and presented a formal case for the ideas I said above, then you can and should rip right into it, for such ideas are formally nonsense. Of course I don't feel this way about ALL religious people (nor did I bother defining what makes a person religious - that should give a clue as to my state of mind at the time. Really though, what the hell does "religious people" even mean? True believers? Church-goers? What?). And of course I don't think that people become "douchebag-safe" by becoming atheists (not sure how I prompted that one but whatever).

To Xray:

I agree (today!) that the statement isn't really horrific/hilarious. I think ironic is a better term. Reinforcing a belief system right before acting against it... yep, ironic is definitely the correct term. Also, thanks for the clarification on Dawkins' idea.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".

Thank you.

Seriously, IT IS A RANT. Not a set of well thought-out, serious, generalized statements with the goal of promoting a profound idea... it is a rant, purely with the goal of letting loose some steam in what is likely to be a supportive environment. Now, if I came in here and presented a formal case for the ideas I said above, then you can and should rip right into it, for such ideas are formally nonsense. Of course I don't feel this way about ALL religious people (nor did I bother defining what makes a person religious - that should give a clue as to my state of mind at the time. Really though, what the hell does "religious people" even mean? True believers? Church-goers? What?). And of course I don't think that people become "douchebag-safe" by becoming atheists (not sure how I prompted that one but whatever).

To Xray:

I agree (today!) that the statement isn't really horrific/hilarious. I think ironic is a better term. Reinforcing a belief system right before acting against it... yep, ironic is definitely the correct term. Also, thanks for the clarification on Dawkins' idea.

Mike

Mike: This rant is clearly a sign of post traumatic stress syndrome because you were terrified that there would be no professional football being played this year!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, Adam, don't fret about your silly old football. Up here we play a superior form of football and you could refine your taste by watching it. And then the hockey season starts....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike: This rant is clearly a sign of post traumatic stress syndrome because you were terrified that there would be no professional football being played this year!

I think you've got it! Then again the Utes are in the Pac-12 this year so I wouldn't be at too much of a loss if there was no NFL Season. However, I can't imagine life without fantasy football!

Mike, Adam, don't fret about your silly old football. Up here we play a superior form of football and you could refine your taste by watching it. And then the hockey season starts....

If you're referring to the CFL... I just don't know what to say :P .

If you are referring to Soccer... well it's my opinion that no game should be allowed to end in a scoreless tie! :lol:

Mike

Edited by Mike Hansen
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no escaping those fucks really... they hide behind despicable logic and cite dogmatic texts all over. Good thing I found this thread or else I would have started it.

I saw this posed on a wall of one of my acquaintances on facebook:

Man: What is a million years to you?

God: Only a second.

Man: What is a billion dollars to you?

God: Only a coin.

Man: OK give me coin.

God: Wait a second...

My reply was: Does this dialogue mean that this "supreme being/invention/projection​" is a being and is therefore subject to the laws of physics and economy?

It suggests that God is limited and therefore the characteristics of omni-presence,potence and science do not apply to Him since He needs time to grant Man's request and the fact that He is willing to give in to His supposed creation.

The dialogue suggests that Man and God are already equals albeit living in relative perspectives of the time-space continuum.

LOL.

Her: It's better not to base your understanding from this dialogue, check out 2 Peter 3:8, so you will not be confuse. =] Anyway I don't own that dialogue bro.

Me:why didn't you just post 2 peter 3-8 then? also, when do you take responsibility for the posts on your wall Jaja? =)

Her: simply because not all people give enough attention to a Bible verse. Some don't even believe in the Holy Scripture.

Me: Hahaha. If it is factual, belief is not necessary. It is demonstrable and testable within a set of criteria and conditions. If this God is real and necessary for life, then once a person disbelieves (as faith is the basis for such arguments) , he would be obliterated at once just like if you close your eyes while crossing a street with heavy traffic.

Her: od is absolutely real. And from the beginning He gave man the freedom/freewill to choose either to believe Him or not. To obey Him or disobey.(Genesis 2:16-17) We can choose to live in God's favor or we can choose to live outside God's favor. What are the Ten Commandments if not rules so that we may make a choice?

But if man disbelieves Him it does not mean He will obliterate man. If He did not found faith from humankind then man will face the consequence of hell (Revelation 21:8). And man chose that unfortunate path. No one to be blame except man because he permits himself to commit a sin. Truly God's character is not subjected to any laws simply because He made those laws. Now if man acquires eternal life with Christ, it means it is everlasting. And living with Christ eternally is more important than acquiring a billion dollars right?

Me: nope.

Her: oh. Alright. I just found out that you are one of those A's =]

Me: A's? Hahaha... the burden of proof is on you true believer - mytho-historical records aside. I cannot be persuaded by threats of damnation as you heavily imply.

Besides Ja, perhaps I was speaking to the wrong representative since u dare not even claim this post even though u certainly did not cite it source.

Where does religiosity end and plagiarism begin?

Her:A: atheism. There's no burden of proof here. No need to prove that God or even hell exists. And I'm not asking you to be persuaded with my beliefs. You already claimed to be an atheist, why would you care to question anyway? Perhaps you are still searching for truth. May you find it though. =]

Me: I ask because there was a glaring flaw in the logic of the original post and I was merely wondering as well as commenting if my observations of those errors were indeed correct. However, I am simply disappointed to find out that you did not even own it and what's more, would not even take responsibility for it.

No need to prove...? You speak as it if was self-evident, as if God or whatchamacallit is right there in front where anyone can hear, see, touch, smell and taste and especially test or study. Therefore, we must and can only infer with our faculties about the existence of such as well as attempt to build an instrument for observing that phenomenon. That is, unless, deep in your conviction you do not really give a damn about it.

Really, I am an atheist but it seems that I care more about this issue than sheeps (like you?). I am one who would still like to know what all this fuss is about and find out if I am wrong or right. It's about time to test this hypothesis which has been around since man (or being prior to man) became sentient.

More specifically, I am speaking against this farce called religion and faith which has long outlived its benign purpose and has been used instead to oppress humanity for the rest. Religion of all forms endorses gods and other bs and the best way to go against it is to deny its very tenets.

Back to the point, oh wait, you don't even have one for the original wall post right? I judge this as a bait and switch scam Ja. Tsk, tsk...

Anyway, that's the end of it... for now. Sly bastards those people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It suggests that God is limited and therefore the characteristics of omni-presence,potence and science do not apply to Him

Medieval scholastics had already established that God cannot be omnipotent, pointing out that God cannot make that e. g. Rome never existed.

As for your argument that science does not apply to a limited god, I don't understand what you mean by that.

For wouldn't a god's being subjected to scientific laws actually be an argument supporting the idea of a limited god, as one that does not 'stand above' the laws of nature?

Edited by Xray
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your argument that science does not apply to a limited god, I don't understand what you mean by that.

For wouldn't a god's being subjected to scientific laws actually be an argument supporting the idea of a limited god, as one that does not 'stand above' the laws of nature?

This is when a definition of "god" is necessary. But if you make your definition such that the god you are referring to (a limited god or whatever you want to call it) has only a few (if any) characteristics in common with most of the religiously-created gods, then you probably ought to use a different word. Plus, using a different word would remove all that mental baggage associated with "god".

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

It suggests that God is limited and therefore the characteristics of omni-presence,potence and science do not apply to Him

Medieval scholastics had already established that God cannot be omnipotent, pointing out that God cannot make that e. g. Rome never existed.

As for your argument that science does not apply to a limited god, I don't understand what you mean by that.

For wouldn't a god's being subjected to scientific laws actually be an argument supporting the idea of a limited god, as one that does not 'stand above' the laws of nature?

Oh... if you read it again, I was sort of shorthanding "omni-presence,potence and science" means omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.

As for your question: exactly. In effect, the god that my friend there was trying to portray was limited and I just had to point out/clarify if that's what she meant i.e. the "man" in the dialogue is equal to (or can reach the level of) "god" which all religions (including hers) believe is blasphemy. The mere assertion that one could invoke the name of this supposed creator who was determined by the creations to be omni-whatever in terms of jest or have him use the same measurements as humans would automatically delimit the powers that religions have ascribed.

If so, I was thinking, why worship something that we have only made "powerful" by projections and consent? Moreover, why should man devaluate himself to a glorified ghost (if there exist such a thing) only to be used by men in holy robes as an excuse to conquer his consciousness?

I assert that there is no such thing as "supernatural" and everything that was discovered (experienced) and will be discovered is subject to natural/physical/scientific laws that can be tested. The biggest stumbling block here are zealots who play blind and would kill for their faith or would always shy away from the idea that their premise has no grounds in reality - for it is in heaven? He he he

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something Michael Dowd posted that I think is relevant to the discussion, it's over here:

4 Reasons Why Nothing Matters More Than What We Think About Evolution

1. A shared sacred story that honors both objective truth and subjective meaning: For the first time in human history we have a creation story that not only addresses life’s biggest questions—Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? Why are we here? How are we to live?—but helps us answer those questions in ways that are both religiously inspiring and scientifically accurate. No longer are subjective meaning and objective truth isolated from one another in separate domains. Both are conveyed through the same story.Let me explain why this is important: Today, religious peoples throughout the world are still inspired by creation stories that arose thousands of years ago, each specific to a people and its local ecologies. In one story, a snake and a forbidden fruit are featured; in another a turtle and a clump of mud play important roles, or a lotus blossom. These ancient stories are still important, but what unites us as a species today is the deeper, underlying story that could not have been discovered/revealed before the invention of telescopes and microscopes and the worldwide scientific enterprise by which objective truth is discerned from real and measurable data.

Looking inward, the scientific enterprise also helps us value far more than barebones science. Our evolved brains absolutely demand that scientific facts be interpreted in meaningful ways—ways that offer solace for life’s disappointments and guidance for living and shaping a better future. Thus, we see that the language of reason and the language of reverence are as complementary as day and night. Day, or factual, language is measurable. It aims to be objectively true. Night, or interpretive, language is metaphorical. It inspires when it is subjectively meaningful. Both ways of speaking are necessary. A sacred evolutionary worldview helps us celebrate both realms: the day realm of objective truth and the night realm of subjective meaning. (TGFE, chapters 1-7, 16)

2. REALizes religion, sanctifies science, and reveals the true magnitude of both: Many religious and non-religious people alike assume that religion is mostly concerned with otherworldly claims, and that science is devoid of meaning. But when we look at cultural evolution and appreciate the necessity of both day language and night language, we see that science is revelatory—it reveals truth—and that many of religion’s seemingly unnatural or miraculous stories actually have a measurably real, this-world referent.

For example, the biblical story of the fall of Adam and Eve and the concept of Original Sin superbly reveal a deep truth that has only recently been understood in a factual way, thanks to evolutionary brain science and evolutionary psychology. Yes, we all have powerful instincts: instincts that served the survival and reproductive needs of our ancestors in early human and pre-human times, but that are now sometimes very much out of sync with the demands of civilized life.

The ancients sensed this truth and their story conveyed it in powerful, night-language ways: notably, a talking snake and an otherworldly God who punished not only the disobedient couple but all their descendents, and for all time. Today, there is no need to argue whether the supernatural claims in that story trump the data revealed by science today. Rather, the biblical story is a brilliant night-language way to communicate the day-language truths born of science: the suffering we experience as fallible individuals in a challenging world has very, very deep roots. Our ancient instincts are not matched for the conditions of today’s world and today’s societies.

Thus, one of the greatest gifts afforded by religiously nourishing interpretations of the science-based history of the universe is that it becomes obvious how unnatural-sounding (“supernatural”) language can be interpreted in undeniably real, and utterly experiential, ways.

I predict that within the first half of this century, the vast majority of people and throughout the entire world will come to appreciate thatevolution is a gift to religion and that meaning-making is a gift to science.

As the religions come to embrace the science-based history of the cosmos, each tradition’s core insights will be accessed in larger, more realistic ways than ever before. Cultures in conflict will find common ground that today seems inconceivable.The science and religion war ends when we get that science is revelatory and facts are God’s native tongue. (TGFE, chapters 4-10, Appendix A, Appendix B)

3. Unmasks the powers of manipulation and clarifies our way forward: When we understand our brain’s creation story and its deep structure we can easily see how the media and advertising industry manipulate us by appealing to instincts related to sex, safety, sustenance, and status. An evolutionary worldview is essential for unmasking the powers of manipulation and for inspiring and empowering us to channel our instinctual energies in ways that serve our higher purpose and the common good.

Only by knowing how we really got here and the trajectory we’re undeniably on can we possibly respond to global issues like climate change and terrorism without making things worse. Indeed, trying to solve any large-scale problem without an evolutionary worldview is like trying to understand disease without microscopes or the structure of the universe without telescopes. It’s not merely difficult; it’s impossible. To use religious language: only by understanding the major breakthroughs in evolution—how God actually created everything, how it measurably occurred—can we possibly know what God is up to today or what God’s will is for humanity and for the body of life as a whole.

Without realistic answers to life’s biggest questions, religious and non-religious people alike will think poorly and vote short-sightedly and self-destructively on issues as diverse as the economy, health care, global warming, and terrorism. (TGFE, chapters 9-10, 14-17)

4. Key to alleviating suffering, living life fully, and loving the life you live: So much suffering in the world today can be traced to people and groups being out of integrity—that is, living day by day in ways that just don’t square with Reality, with the way the world actually is. Individuals and families suffer, communities and organizations suffer, and nations and ecosystems suffer when we’re out of integrity. But here’s the catch: without understanding our place in the universe and life's trajectory, we won’t even know what integrity is, much less know how to live in it.

A deep-time worldview is essential for abiding in deepest integrity. More, integrity is where we find common ground. Whatever else religions are, they are a call to integrity. Whatever else ecology is, it is a call to integrity. And whatever else evolution is, it is a call to integrity.

Here are four things that we know about human nature: (1) we’ll always need answers to life’s biggest questions, (2) we’ll always interpret our experience using metaphors, (3) we’ll always be challenged by our evolved instincts, and (4) integrity will always be our way home.

From a personal standpoint, this last point—that integrity is our way home—is really great news. Compost happens. Life is not fair. Yet when we see all that has been revealed in recent centuries through the full range of sciences, we find unmistakably clear guidance for how to live a really great life and have thriving relationships, and how to leave a positive legacy, no matter what hand life deals us. The key is choosing integrity and incorporating deep integrity practices into one’s life until they become habitual. (TGFE, chapters 11-15, 18, Epilogue)

For a printable pdf version of this post, click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your argument that science does not apply to a limited god, I don't understand what you mean by that.

For wouldn't a god's being subjected to scientific laws actually be an argument supporting the idea of a limited god, as one that does not 'stand above' the laws of nature?

This is when a definition of "god" is necessary. But if you make your definition such that the god you are referring to (a limited god or whatever you want to call it) has only a few (if any) characteristics in common with most of the religiously-created gods, then you probably ought to use a different word. Plus, using a different word would remove all that mental baggage associated with "god".

Mike

Indeed one would need to use a different word; "limited god" won't do. :)

I suppose theists would become (rightly) suspicious if an agnostic or atheist tried to discuss the idea of a limited god with them. For they would see where the other party is headed: with the idea of a god who is that limited and powerless, or with the idea of a god whom one really cannot separate from the cosmos anymore (the problem of pantheism), why not apply Occam's razor and drop the god idea altogether as unnecessary, as redundant?

Those who hold a position similar to Deism, seeing god as the mere creator, have problems with the idea of a 'good' god. For this god is indifferent.

In one of his films, the character played by Wood Allen said if there is a god, he looks like an 'underachiever' to him, who made very little of his talent.

Voltaire argued in a similar vein, cynically attacking, in view of the terrible 1755 earthquake in Lisbon, Leibniz's idea of "the best of all possible worlds".

In addition to the problem of not being able to produce evidence of a god's existence, many believers also have problems in defending the characteristics of their "god", getting entangled in a web of contradictions.

Edited by Xray
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now