the_naturalist
Member
The Unfabric of God and Evidence
With the following, this essay is to clear the smoke screen and set forth a reality check on the lack of evidence of a "personal god" or "god of intervention" who supposedly is "involved" in our daily life. This is not to be misinterpreted with the metaphor of "god of design" or "god the great watchmaker" who we lean for an explanation or mystery of the cosmos. With a sea of information on the existence and non-existence of a personal god, one can hardly be blamed for being sceptic, pragmatic, agnostic... sitting on the fence until the "real evidence" is in for a personal god. And has the evidence really come in --- all wrapped up in tissue paper and pink ribbon? Many people are at odds with the evidence whether passionately or passively. The question of a personal god has led to endless discussions of attrition whereby religion and the bible ascribe to the fact that god is Omni present, watching our every move, and intervenes with our lives if only we accept his Christian doctrines. Faith and science are the two dominant forces that are at odds with the evidence of god. Well what is faith? It's a way of thinking of beliefs in the absence of evidence. Science on the other hand is a way of thinking based on research, logic, critical thinking and an "understanding" to a degree what we can comprehend --- hence the "theory" position. We live in an age of science and technology. And science can be as trivial as the science of putting on pants in the morning. To deny science is to deny our own reality. Who is more humble ?: A scientist who looks at the world with an open mind, does observations and accepts what it has to offer --- or a biblical literalist who believes in truth only through the bible. A "pure" sceptic can make the argument that both religion and science cannot prove the existence of a personal god, since both forces are intangible in this case and have no "pure basis" in reality because we cannot "sense" a personal god in the "real" world. Again, this is the viewpoint of a zealous sceptic and atheist, just as we have Christian zealots. As mentioned, the argument here is to prove the lack of evidence of a personal god. The argument can get quite convoluted if we throw in "faith" and "science". It would only seem fair, logical, and intellectually honest to make observations that have pure matter-of-fact perspectives. To create a fair playing field to prove the lack of evidence of a personal god, science will not be used as a footnote, but instead taking a "hard look" using "empirical evidence" and "critical thinking" that have a "pure basis" in reality as we relate to it in our present daily life.
The power of institutions over the mass
There is a famous saying, I'm sure you have heard of it: "Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see". 21st century human beings are fundamentally "creatures of belief". We tend to believe in beliefs. Someone makes a statement or claim and our natural instinct is to believe. And why not. For the "most part" or "up until recently", we were trusting individuals who looked up to authority figures as they "appear" to have our best interest at heart. But the reality seems to indicate that we are simply pawns for their own game. When young soldiers are sent off to war by our leaders to fight an "imaginary enemy", they believe, fight, fear, and die for their country. When the pharmaceutical industry formulates diseases and induces the drugging of society for conditions that are natural in human biology, we believe, fear, and buy their unnecessary and side-effective drugs. When the bible imposes sacred laws and doctrines, we believe, obey, and fear its consequences now and in the afterlife if we challenge its scriptures. All clever moves! Government, pharmaceutical industry, religion... all examples how humans are influenced by the "words and works" of powerful entities. Even with claims that defy logic or claims that are too good to be true, we go on our merry way of believing whatever is prescribed. Regardless of the nature, circumstance, or other factors entangled in a committed statement, as a whole we tend to believe rather than not to believe. And this becomes exponentially more so when believing in authority figures. The argument here is that authoritative powers have always taken advantage of the unsecured mass through whatever "ends" that will justify their "means". The evidence clearly demonstrates that we are very influenced and credulous by nature. And religious spirituality or the bible with its "ends" is no exception to the rule in influencing the mass.
The false acceptance of god, religious spirituality, and miracles
If you were to take a general survey and ask the question to people if they believe in god, religion, and miracles, the data would be more inclined towards a "yes". By the same token, if you were to ask them if they attend church services, pray regularly, read the bible regularly, and have witnessed a miracle (collaboratively with others) that defies reality, the data would be just the opposite. And if some did experience a "personal and unique" miracle and intervention, why hasn't it happen to those who are just as religiously spiritual, moral, equal, and who would like for god to save their own dying child for example. The data on faith and belief are clearly contradictory. It seems that people accept the "notion" of god but don't commit to his practice. The belief of his handy work and penance are put on the backburner because they have not witnessed any of them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and here lies the problem. Whether as a child or adult, at one point in our lives, we all prayed to god and asked for his help many times and only to be unheard. For the most part, believers are really --- believers in denial. People passively believe in god because they have been indoctrinated to believe since infancy. It's part of all cultures to believe in god. If anything, religious spirituality and god give us a feeling of security, particularly as a coping mechanism when we really need him as a last resort. If people did experience "first hand" god's handy work and penance, they would be devout Christians the way the bible intended them to be. They would be essentially much better people. The Christian religion would be on the rise rather than on the decline. If religious spirituality would have a basis in reality and would deliver interventions here and now, churches would spring up everywhere to the point that you could not throw a rock without hitting one.
Scriptures and its contradiction with the legal interpretation of fraud
With the end of jungle barbarism, the subject of dominance is best achieved through non-violent, cunning, and influential strategies within our new order. Since we can't club someone over the head and drag them by the hair to make them do what we wish, "cunning and influence" has replaced the "club". Mates try to attract other mates through the influence of love. A salesperson tries to attract customers through the influence of a great sales pitch. A presidential candidate tries to attract voters through the influence his image and policies. Religious scriptures try to attract people through the influence of a better life and afterlife. Now we naturally know that promises are broken. And if they are broken, its dishonesty and fraud. The following is a "legal" interpretation of fraud and best described as "a statement of fact with no reasonable basis to make that statement" or "a promise of future performance made with an intent, at the time the promise was made, not to perform as promised". Legally speaking, religious scriptures would fall under the category of dishonesty and fraud. When does religion deliver its goods --- only in the afterlife, when we have no recourse. And because religion has always been a pillar of power and has been indoctrinated in society, its ways are tolerated. If religion was a new hip organization that just sprung up out of the blue, that collects money and delivers broken promises, technically it would be shutdown just like other organizations that commit fraud according to the legal interpretation of fraud. It would be treated no different as any other charlatan that comes ambling along.
In conclusion, organic religious spirituality has a purpose and benefit to humankind. Its natural codes, specifically on ethics and life are real, moral, and beautifully explained in the bible through enlightenment and poetry. But supernatural religion concocted by man with a motive for its own ends corrode the true essence of religious spirituality. And that motive is power. The influence of power and greed are stronger forces than religion and spirituality. Nothing has changed, business as usual! Faith believers make the argument that science cannot explain faith. Would Christians be understanding to a different and personal faith that a china teapot revolves about the sun in an elliptical orbit.
In my opinion, a true religion is one that is natural and socially conscious --- and not supernatural which man instilled for his gain. Jesus Christ lives on to this day because, before the creation of the bible as well as what we know from alternative history, he was remembered as a person of tremendous social consciousness and love. Jesus was anti-establishment and wanted to get rid of false and sacred religious laws and dogmas --- perhaps the real reason why he died for us. The irony here is that Jesus movement, which became a new hip religion called Christianity became no different from the other false religions --- again perpetuated by man.
Thank you
The Naturalist
With the following, this essay is to clear the smoke screen and set forth a reality check on the lack of evidence of a "personal god" or "god of intervention" who supposedly is "involved" in our daily life. This is not to be misinterpreted with the metaphor of "god of design" or "god the great watchmaker" who we lean for an explanation or mystery of the cosmos. With a sea of information on the existence and non-existence of a personal god, one can hardly be blamed for being sceptic, pragmatic, agnostic... sitting on the fence until the "real evidence" is in for a personal god. And has the evidence really come in --- all wrapped up in tissue paper and pink ribbon? Many people are at odds with the evidence whether passionately or passively. The question of a personal god has led to endless discussions of attrition whereby religion and the bible ascribe to the fact that god is Omni present, watching our every move, and intervenes with our lives if only we accept his Christian doctrines. Faith and science are the two dominant forces that are at odds with the evidence of god. Well what is faith? It's a way of thinking of beliefs in the absence of evidence. Science on the other hand is a way of thinking based on research, logic, critical thinking and an "understanding" to a degree what we can comprehend --- hence the "theory" position. We live in an age of science and technology. And science can be as trivial as the science of putting on pants in the morning. To deny science is to deny our own reality. Who is more humble ?: A scientist who looks at the world with an open mind, does observations and accepts what it has to offer --- or a biblical literalist who believes in truth only through the bible. A "pure" sceptic can make the argument that both religion and science cannot prove the existence of a personal god, since both forces are intangible in this case and have no "pure basis" in reality because we cannot "sense" a personal god in the "real" world. Again, this is the viewpoint of a zealous sceptic and atheist, just as we have Christian zealots. As mentioned, the argument here is to prove the lack of evidence of a personal god. The argument can get quite convoluted if we throw in "faith" and "science". It would only seem fair, logical, and intellectually honest to make observations that have pure matter-of-fact perspectives. To create a fair playing field to prove the lack of evidence of a personal god, science will not be used as a footnote, but instead taking a "hard look" using "empirical evidence" and "critical thinking" that have a "pure basis" in reality as we relate to it in our present daily life.
The power of institutions over the mass
There is a famous saying, I'm sure you have heard of it: "Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see". 21st century human beings are fundamentally "creatures of belief". We tend to believe in beliefs. Someone makes a statement or claim and our natural instinct is to believe. And why not. For the "most part" or "up until recently", we were trusting individuals who looked up to authority figures as they "appear" to have our best interest at heart. But the reality seems to indicate that we are simply pawns for their own game. When young soldiers are sent off to war by our leaders to fight an "imaginary enemy", they believe, fight, fear, and die for their country. When the pharmaceutical industry formulates diseases and induces the drugging of society for conditions that are natural in human biology, we believe, fear, and buy their unnecessary and side-effective drugs. When the bible imposes sacred laws and doctrines, we believe, obey, and fear its consequences now and in the afterlife if we challenge its scriptures. All clever moves! Government, pharmaceutical industry, religion... all examples how humans are influenced by the "words and works" of powerful entities. Even with claims that defy logic or claims that are too good to be true, we go on our merry way of believing whatever is prescribed. Regardless of the nature, circumstance, or other factors entangled in a committed statement, as a whole we tend to believe rather than not to believe. And this becomes exponentially more so when believing in authority figures. The argument here is that authoritative powers have always taken advantage of the unsecured mass through whatever "ends" that will justify their "means". The evidence clearly demonstrates that we are very influenced and credulous by nature. And religious spirituality or the bible with its "ends" is no exception to the rule in influencing the mass.
The false acceptance of god, religious spirituality, and miracles
If you were to take a general survey and ask the question to people if they believe in god, religion, and miracles, the data would be more inclined towards a "yes". By the same token, if you were to ask them if they attend church services, pray regularly, read the bible regularly, and have witnessed a miracle (collaboratively with others) that defies reality, the data would be just the opposite. And if some did experience a "personal and unique" miracle and intervention, why hasn't it happen to those who are just as religiously spiritual, moral, equal, and who would like for god to save their own dying child for example. The data on faith and belief are clearly contradictory. It seems that people accept the "notion" of god but don't commit to his practice. The belief of his handy work and penance are put on the backburner because they have not witnessed any of them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and here lies the problem. Whether as a child or adult, at one point in our lives, we all prayed to god and asked for his help many times and only to be unheard. For the most part, believers are really --- believers in denial. People passively believe in god because they have been indoctrinated to believe since infancy. It's part of all cultures to believe in god. If anything, religious spirituality and god give us a feeling of security, particularly as a coping mechanism when we really need him as a last resort. If people did experience "first hand" god's handy work and penance, they would be devout Christians the way the bible intended them to be. They would be essentially much better people. The Christian religion would be on the rise rather than on the decline. If religious spirituality would have a basis in reality and would deliver interventions here and now, churches would spring up everywhere to the point that you could not throw a rock without hitting one.
Scriptures and its contradiction with the legal interpretation of fraud
With the end of jungle barbarism, the subject of dominance is best achieved through non-violent, cunning, and influential strategies within our new order. Since we can't club someone over the head and drag them by the hair to make them do what we wish, "cunning and influence" has replaced the "club". Mates try to attract other mates through the influence of love. A salesperson tries to attract customers through the influence of a great sales pitch. A presidential candidate tries to attract voters through the influence his image and policies. Religious scriptures try to attract people through the influence of a better life and afterlife. Now we naturally know that promises are broken. And if they are broken, its dishonesty and fraud. The following is a "legal" interpretation of fraud and best described as "a statement of fact with no reasonable basis to make that statement" or "a promise of future performance made with an intent, at the time the promise was made, not to perform as promised". Legally speaking, religious scriptures would fall under the category of dishonesty and fraud. When does religion deliver its goods --- only in the afterlife, when we have no recourse. And because religion has always been a pillar of power and has been indoctrinated in society, its ways are tolerated. If religion was a new hip organization that just sprung up out of the blue, that collects money and delivers broken promises, technically it would be shutdown just like other organizations that commit fraud according to the legal interpretation of fraud. It would be treated no different as any other charlatan that comes ambling along.
In conclusion, organic religious spirituality has a purpose and benefit to humankind. Its natural codes, specifically on ethics and life are real, moral, and beautifully explained in the bible through enlightenment and poetry. But supernatural religion concocted by man with a motive for its own ends corrode the true essence of religious spirituality. And that motive is power. The influence of power and greed are stronger forces than religion and spirituality. Nothing has changed, business as usual! Faith believers make the argument that science cannot explain faith. Would Christians be understanding to a different and personal faith that a china teapot revolves about the sun in an elliptical orbit.
In my opinion, a true religion is one that is natural and socially conscious --- and not supernatural which man instilled for his gain. Jesus Christ lives on to this day because, before the creation of the bible as well as what we know from alternative history, he was remembered as a person of tremendous social consciousness and love. Jesus was anti-establishment and wanted to get rid of false and sacred religious laws and dogmas --- perhaps the real reason why he died for us. The irony here is that Jesus movement, which became a new hip religion called Christianity became no different from the other false religions --- again perpetuated by man.
Thank you
The Naturalist
