A letter to Believers

[stahrwe]

Interbane,

you can have a get out of post free pass if you withdraw the head post on this now.

[Interbane]

Interbane,

you can have a get out of post free pass if you withdraw the head post on this now.

Silence fool.

[DWill]

Show me the alternate world that proves this is so. We have no other nature to use than our human nature, from which religion arose.

I agree with you on your points DWill, but I suggest we look at examples of modern secular societies as to how well we could do without religion. There are other factors that weigh in on a population's happiness, but the correlation is still remarkable. Even the least of it's implications is that we certainly don't need religious belief to be happy.

"And what has secularism done to Norway? The Global Peace Index rates Norway the most peaceful country in the world. The Human Development Index, a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standard of living, has ranked Norway No. 1 every year for the last five years."

Countries whose citizens report a high level of atheism and agnoticism can do very well, as the Scandinavian countries show. It's interesting that these countries have a state church, to which most of the population 'belongs.' But most of the people don't appear really to have Christian beliefs. It's an odd situation. I don't think it can be said that atheism/agnoticism is responsible for the happiness, though. It may contribute, but the happiness is multi-factorial. Similarly, with those measures of well-being where the U.S. comes up short of these countries, our greater religiosity probably isn't the culprit. I can't see that religion has any definite bearing one way or the other on the conditions that promote the happiness of the people.

[geo]

. . I don't think it can be said that atheism/agnoticism is responsible for the happiness, though. It may contribute, but the happiness is multi-factorial. Similarly, with those measures of well-being where the U.S. comes up short of these countries, our greater religiosity probably isn't the culprit. I can't see that religion has any definite bearing one way or the other on the conditions that promote the happiness of the people.

Good point. It's never quite as simple as it seems. Probably the same conditions that lead to secularism also lead to happiness, i.e. economy, education, literacy, etc.

[Robert Tulip]

Considered as a framework of astral wisdom, this measure seems to me to contain a plausible astronomical code.

Stop right there. If I am going to try to decipher your post, I need to know what 'astral wisdom' is.

Thanks Geo. 'Astral Wisdom' is the recognition that the emergent complexity of the cosmos is a long term causal determinant for events on earth. As Thoth put it, 'as above so below'.

Here is how I see the holy city in terms of astral wisdom as a structure of the cosmos 12,000 units across. This diagram is 100% empirical. I have a further interpretive version adding traditional thematic designations of each age, and also showing the 144 part division against the gas giant cycle. This version also shows the Greater Magellanic Cloud as the famous Vedic Turtle at the Bottom of the Universe. Happy to explain further.

[vampire0x0master]

you speak the truth sir. its even worse when you are the only atheist in your family and two of your aunt's are trying to guilt trip you to convert back to christianity (its not working) and its fun annoying them . and you go to an all christian school(i have atheist friends at school so...) and are required to go to chappel every monday morning.

[Interbane]

I'm sure your aunts think they are doing the right thing by attempting to influence your beliefs. To me, this is an excellent example of the viral nature of religion at work. "Spread the word! Save all heathens from hellfire!"

[tat tvam asi]

you speak the truth sir. its even worse when you are the only atheist in your family and two of your aunt's are trying to guilt trip you to convert back to christianity (its not working) and its fun annoying them . and you go to an all christian school(i have atheist friends at school so...) and are required to go to chappel every monday morning.

I had a similar childhood!

I was raised in the Seventh Day Adventist faith and went through my first 12 years of school in that particular system. At about age 15 I began to see the big picture - especially during communion and foot washing services - and started realizing that we were all role playing the activities of a mythological storyline. We were required to go to church and nightly worship services as well, which sucks when you don't buy into the mythology and it God's as literal history.

For me personally, the supreme God of the myth clearly symbolizes mere existence itself which is greatly personified in the mythic storyline, but a reference to mere existence nonetheless. Mythology / Religion deals with life and existence plain and simple! So what is "omnipresent" aside from the very realm of existence itself? What can be everywhere in the universe and infinitely beyond simultaneously aside from the very realm of existence that is necessarily common to all things?

This gets very technical to try and explain, but I believe that God exists only in the sense that I believe that mere existence (the "omnipresent") itself does in fact exist. So one might say that I do not lack belief in God, because, after all, a-theism simply means "Not God belief" as a-gnostic means "Not Knowing". I know what the symbolism of "omnipresence" is hinting at and I believe that the omnipresent realm of existence does in fact exist. So it's a God belief of sorts and not a complete lack thereof. What's interesting for someone from my perspective is that in order to really be a true atheist I must therefore lack a belief in mere existence itself (God). I see through the mythic personification imagery to the core of the reference. This is why I prefer to classify myself among the ranks of Scientific Pantheism because it outlines the belief that God is the "All", the totality. Not belief in a literal deity, not belief in something absent from the world and universe, but simply understanding the totality for what it is. It all boils down to understanding what the definition of "omnipresence" implies:

The Gospel According to Acharya S.

P.10 – “If it is not all encompassing, it is not God. Anything less than the totality is not God. The definition of God is omnipresence itself. Nothing is outside of God.”

P. 31 – “The point is that even to religious fanatics God is omnipresent and, as such, is not, cannot be and never will be contained in one book, no matter how many times the cheerleaders of that book threaten eternal damnation and punishment. If God is omnipresent – a device conveniently used by these selfsame preachers, priests and imams to scare people, e.g., “God is watching you at all times” – then God is contained in everything, and that means every book, each person, every animal and rock. That universality is the definition of omnipresence. In case the religionists still don’t get that fact, let’s spell it out:

”omnipresent : present in all places at all times” – Webster’s

Case closed. It is not possible for an omnipresent divinity to be here but not there. It is impossible for an omnipresent deity to be absent from someplace – that fact remains the bottom line. Therefore – paradoxically to the notion that arrogant individuals who pretend to speak for God are misrepresenting themselves – every book and every individual that claims to be speaking for God must be right, even those which say God is an utterly bogus concept designed to enslave the human race.”

In other words, the realm of existence (the mythic supreme God) speaks through everything and everyone which can not possibly exclude the ranks of atheism and freethought in general (humanists, agnostics, pantheists etc, etc)! When theists lash out and attack atheists as if the "omnipresent" God is for the theists and against the atheists it seems to me that a proper definition of "omnipresence" is always well in order!

[Omid Mankoo Author]

It is good to hear you voice your thoughts. I am not a person who just believes things just because they are written in a book. I investigate and try to see what can be coroborated, and possibly seen as true.

I understand that a lot of information has been misinterpreted, which makes many situations seem more miraculous than what was meant to communicate. Though I do understand that miraculous things can happen, obviously they have explanantion as to why.

Lamsa (an author, who's native language is Arameic) states that hellfire means mental torment. for example someone who steals is forever in mental torment about what he did. in addition he is in angst about being discovered wherever he goes. so he is never at peace. He is in a self created hell. in fact Buddha describes the bliss that he feels by the example of a theif. he state that the theif is always aware that he may be discovered and so he is never in peace. he states that the Buddha is always in peace in whichever direction he turns because he always does things correctly and so he never fears any circumstance or any person.

Lamsa also states that the Arameic language had few words. Therefore when they wanted to describe a word, or a situation they had to use parables, and situatinoal understanding to communicate the significance of what they meant because they had no word to desribe it. for example when they wanted to say absolutely no. they could say "My father will visit the king when he gives birth to a cow" meaning, He will never visit the King. So, that is partially why you see a lot of what seems to be exagurated speaking. it is an attempt at getting a point across by use of an exagurrated statement which cannoty be used by a language which does not have the words to describe one's intention effectively. the problem is that people take those sentences literaly, which seems odd. then there is the fact that the stories are ancient, therefore we are far removed from understanding their situation.

for example Lamsa explains that the instance that appears that Jesus can see into the future and state that the apostles will meet a boy carrrying water and to follow him to the house they need to visit, is nothing more than a lack of understanding of a culture. he states that women always carry the water, and carry it to their homes. the hotel where stragers are staying in a village is the only place that have a boy carry the water back to the hotel. for it would be inappropriate for a woman to carry water and bring it to the stragers in the hotel. So all jesus was doing was telling them the means to find the hotel in a nearby village. That is, go to the well, see the boy who is carrying water. follow him back to the hotel, and you have found where you can stay.

Lamsa states that the area that he lived was isolated for 2000 years because of its geographic isolation. He states that they ate the same food, they spoke the same way, they did the same things as 2000 years ago. he staes that both the Hebrew and the greek will misunderstand these Arameic expressions, to mean something completely different than what is stated.

Zachariah Sitchin also has fascinating cuneforms which describe in more detail the story of creation. He states that the bible was taken from these ancient historical records. Very ineterseting.

I agree that we should not take something and believe in it as it appears just because it was written. It is important to be honest with ourselves about science, religion and about everything. In our honesty we can see the obstacles facing us, which are the ancient languages, translated to modern english.
If true, then Spiritual concepts trying to be expressed using ancient languages, which is in itself extremely difficult.