Let’s Talk About God

All human beings must consider, that this huge Universe has been CREATED via an IDEA and a WILL to create it. The Creator of this Universe calls himself "PRIMARY NUCLEUS". The Primary Nucleus not only creates everything, but he FEEDS also everything. It would be to much text to explain all these details. This huge Universe is first and foremost the Universe of SUNS. And certain suns create their own CRUST, and so, they become PLANETS. Every Planet is still a SUN (inside), except the SUN is encapsulated.

All creations of FLORA and FAUNA are SECONDARY CREATIONS. There are many hierarchies which created all the individual members of FLORA and FAUNA.

So, your issue is: IS THERE A GOD ?

Well, YES, there is ONE HUGE POWERFUL CREATOR OF EVERYTHING ... and HE can also communicate with little me ... as many other entities throughout the Universe can communicate with all of us.

Did you know, that there is NO DEATH. You will never die ... your spirit is ETERNAL ... just like mine.

Write me if you have questions at <Wolfram1@AaaHawk.com>

"The atheist writers Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have presented us with a choice: either you don't believe in God or you're a dope." This is the choice. The facts are not on the side of the believers, regardless of how many people believe it. Many people believed the world flat at a time.

Mr. Wright's arguments are nothing but the next disingenuous argument to save mankind's gods from irrelevance.

It is nice of Mr. Wright to postulate that religion is getting nicer. To call it the evolution of God remains nonsensical, as God in all his or her flavors and models remain a human creation. Electrons can be understood by their physical influence on the world. God must be artificially introduced, and promoted, and given sustenance, like a cuckoo chick in a robin's nest. Twist it any way you want; religion remains a graft onto human affairs. Dethrone a god--forget about him or her, as has been done repeatedly through history, and its influence vanishes like a mirage, and is never felt again.

If a god changes according to the changing sensibilities of the believers, is that really a god? The answer is obvious to any thinking person. The "recognition of good and bad" is then not a function of religious influence--it is religion that reflects evolving social morality. We must not lull ourselves into believing that it is the source, because the social contract is far more powerful without it. Why? Because agreement between people, reached freely, holds a higher value of truth, and requires no theft from the human spirit.

Humankind is making progress, in spite of everything. The ancient ideologies of war found in the Scriptures are hopefully losing their power. If the end result is a kinder, gentler supernatural projection, that is an improvement, but we cannot be assured of its permanence. The seeds of fanaticism are still to be found at its very core.

One day most people will learn how to live without the supernatural, and we will have full responsibility for our own failures and triumphs.

You believe everything that is written? Believe this: There is not, and never has been, a "god". There. It is written, so it is so.
Religeous belief is nothing more than a ponnzi scheme, deaigned to make a buck. Make that millions of bucks!
Has anyone noticed that "islam" is creeping into all aspects of discousre? Why? Who cares about filthy sub-humans?
Stick something in your face long enough, and it is justified? We are not ignorant, desert dwelling nomads anymore.
Quit trying to foster belief in obvious charade.

IWho knows how the universe came about but it has nothing to do with your invisible friend. I am not telling anyone what to believe. Just do not make things up that cannot be proved just because we are hardwired to believe in some god or the other. It is apparent that the religious take themselves so seriously that they make themselves the center of the universe. These people are very full of themselves. I think it is a question of intellect and maturity and the religionists have neither.

I don't understand the need for you believers to create a god. You have created it. God is your invention. Just because you are superstitious doesn't mean the rest of us need to be. I am related to many religionists. I think all of you are just frightened and must create a god to make you less afraid. All of you religionists create your god because you want favors from it. Notice not one of you prays for the starving billions but only for your personal health, wealth etc. You do need to expand your minds. Do not create such an absurd figment. You need to mature.

It's interesting how many of the themes discussed on the comments seem to cover similar refrains: that traditional, organized religion has caused many problems in the world and that atheists seem flabbergasted at why people believe in religion at all.

To the first point, I agree. Religious leaders can be very intolerant and have caused many unspeakable, horrible and criminal things to happen. If a religion's efforts is not uniting people and bringing them together, then it's not doing it's job. A wise Persian man, Abdu'l-Baha, put it more eloquently: "Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act."

To the second point, I would like to offer some advice to those people who don't believe in God and are proud of it: you kind of come across as insulting and unlikeable. I totally understand your grievances and I'm with you most of the way, but if you want to enlighten people with your reason--and you make great points--then can you at least try to win us over with some honey? Say something nice occasionally. That's smart marketing.

Lastly, I noticed on the comments a lot of misunderstandings about religion, namely that religion is frozen in the past, observing literal interpretations of the Old Testament, etc. Yes, some practitioners do this--and they are wrong. Actually most people's understanding about the psychology of relgion is wrong. Closer scrutiny of newer religious traditions--namely, the Baha'i Faith--may bring you a different insight:

--That science and religion are in harmony. Scientific discoveries expand our consciousness and propel humanity forward; (true) religion--aiming to promote the betterment of all humanity (e.g. medical breakthroughs)--keeps science grounded so that it doesn't veer off into materialism or other bad things (e.g. eugenics).

--That the most important action you can do is to independently investigate the truth yourself. So don't be a Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist, etc. just because your parents, teachers, favorite bloggers tells you to. Do your homework--no copying!

--That there is only ONE religion in the world, with many different chapters that you have heard of: Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. Religion is not static--it evolves, just as humanity's collective consciousness does, and this is what Robert Wright alludes to in his book, The Evolution of God.

Yes, I'm a Baha'i. I try not to push people--that's not cool. But since hardly anyone knows about my beliefs--and since it is relevant to the discourse of society--I want to share some basics it so that people have a wider array of choices before coming to any conclusions about religion.

There are a few things way off with Lisa Miller's discussion. When quoting Wright's book she says, "religion can 'help us orient our daily lives, recognize good and bad, and make sense of joy and suffering alike.' since when? having trhe ability to make those distinctions are anything buty religious. They are naturally evolved senses that we have developed over thousands of years to cope and deal with the challenges of life on this planet. Like morality, religion (or the bible or Koran etc) does not dicate what it is or how we should understand it.

Then she says, "In all religions it's possible for the benign intepretation of scripture to flourish". So what? That doesn't make it true. Baseless assertions like this one,, though appearing benign itself, are what drive the moderately religious and then in turn give justification to other more extreme forms of religion. It also possible for a benign interpretation of Mein Kampf. Duh!

Comparing God to an electron. Oh Puhlease! We have evidence, albeit indirect, of these small particles and more direct evidence of the larger tiny particles so we know for sure that these exist despite not being able to totally detect them with our current technology. God on the other hand has no evidence at all, indirect or otherwise to make such a claim of existence. Another example like this one is the existence of Big Foot. Most likely it doesn't exist but it could have and perhas did up until recent times. Its not impossible to think that a large primate like creature lived on this earth just as various species of primates (some very large) have dones on this planet for countless millennia. Crpytozoology may not be taken seriously in some circles but still the cryptozoologist intends to do science to uncvover or refute these mysteries....what methods does the religous use to provide proof of their mystery? oh wait they don;t need proof they just need faith.

Why do we still clong to this magic man in the sky myth?

To raynorwhal:
Feser demolishes the Four Faithless horseman of this decade for their intellectual poverty related to historical proofs of God, for writing outside of their areas of expertise (none of them have degrees in this realm),

Interesting . . . how did you surmise that the faithless horsemen are intellectually impecunious? Oh . . . wait it's because they do not have degrees in some area of expertise . . . I have a vague recollection from one of Dawkins' books regarding that . . . the gist of it was "these degrees give you expertise in what exactly? "

It is a tragedy that so many contemporary Americans do not have a clue (as well as these celebrated atheists) about the well reasoned and written proofs of God that are available and have stood the test of centuries.

Oh science is SO annoying . . . uh . . . which tests and where are they documented?

Take the plunge to read Feser (not an easy read, remember this is philosophy) but truly a worthwhile read that is bound to change your thinking on this matter

Uh . . . thanks for the offer, but really, no thanks . . . anything with such appeal to a mind such as yours will surely be repugnant to minds not (thankfully) like yours.

Have a nice day! And make sure to let God know when things go awry and "he" has to do the needful to set them right.

The component missing from any debate of religion is how and why do human beings come to believe anything! It is scientific fact that subconscious belief systems housed in the individuals self image, filter and distort their perception of reality. It is very possible, in fact common, to hold subconscious beliefs that have no truth or evidence. An anorexic looks in the mirror and sees a fat person. Hypnotic Modalities form subconscious belief systems. They are in advertising, politics, education, and religion. The modalities we are exposed to create subconscious belief systems and make us suggestible to them. All hypnotic modalities must have three components to be effective. They are; 1) Authority / power 2) Doctrine / paradigm 3) Overload / internal experience. With repeated exposure a person becomes suggestible to it and it becomes a subconscious belief. No amount of logic or reason will alter the belief once internalized. That is why cognitive therapy is so ineffective. If a person has internalized low self esteem for example, no amount of talking with change their belief. Religion is the most powerful Hypnotic Modality on earth. Genocide and wars have been fought to suppress it, to no avail. Thoughts create the reality. If a person believes in god, god is real in his reality. It is inconsequential whether god is real or not. If a sports fanatic believes in his team, it is the end of the world if they lose. A religious fanatic is no more stable or philosophical than the sports fanatic. Any discussion of logic and reason needs to include what is logic and reason!

Rick Monk, it seems to me that you more have a problem with Christianity than any other religion since every example you use has something to do with Christian extremists. Also, you too have a religion whether it be Atheism or something else. Religion is simply defined as "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices". To further define the definition, religious means "fervent or zealous". Yes, these terms are used mainly today to describe people who have a set belief but for anyone who has a set of beliefs, whether mainstream or not, that constitutes a religion. As for the extremist acts that you speak of, every "religion" regardless of the faith or views on life, has an extremist in their midst, don't judge the many for the actions of a few. Finally, I do not understand why you have such hate for religion, what made you so angry with any type of religion?