Freethinkers/Atheists/Naturalists Unite

[dreadgeek]

Hey all:

So lacking any better place to put this topic, I decided to put it underneath Body/Mind/Spirit (although it's not exactly where I would want it but no matter). At any rate, this is a space for that small minority of us who hold to a naturalistic worldview. Some of us call ourselves freethinkers, others may use the term atheists (although these are not the same thing) and others may prefer the term naturalist. Whatever it is, if you live your life without gods, angels, The Secret, or other such ideas and ideologies this is the place for you.

So, a bit about me:

I am a non-theist, scientific naturalist who incorporates Buddhism into my world view to create and bring meaning into my life. I am studying bioinformatics, which is a marriage of computer science and biology. In a prior career incarnation, I was a freelance science reporter mostly covering HIV/AIDS treatment and breast cancer research but that was back in the early 90's.

I am a recovering Pentecostal Christian who was raised partially in the Southern Baptist church and partially in the AME (African Methodist Episcopal). After I left the church, I spent a number of years in the New Age movement (I was in the Bay Area) and fell out of it when, after reading Fred Alan Wolf's "Taking the Quantum Leap" I wanted to read a little bit deeper into the subject of quantum mechanics and discovered, much to my surprise, that quantum mechanics as described by 'mainstream' physicists and those described by, what I'll generously call the renegades is *very* different. The more I read into QM, the more I came to appreciate this amazing universe we inhabit on its own terms which led, over time, to my adopting a worldview unencumbered by supernatural considerations.

Cheers
Aj

[Medusa]

Hey AJ!

I was glad to see you start this thread! A lot of these themes have been circling in my head of late. I, too, was raised in a Southern Baptist environment and this time of year always brings up memories for me of being taught that Christmas was a "Christian" holiday, having discussions with my mom about how "Santa Claus" worked for God, and seeing (in my own child's mind) greed and sloth take over in some areas of my family.

I am also a non-theist at this point in my life and incorporate Buddhist principals into my way of being to feel balanced. I feel more peaceful in my life without the presence of a "God" than I ever did while attending church. I often speak of things that the "universe" provides but I think that for me, when I think of the "universe" it is less about an entity and more about all of those forces of electicity that we create as human beings.

My path of late has brought me back around to wanting to expand my knowledge and thinking about the Quantum. I came across this book on amazon: "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by Bruce Rosenblum" and thought I might give it a read. Do you have any recommendations for interesting reads?

I love how you characterize a "world view" without supernatural considerations. Can you talk more about what that looks like to you?

Great thread!

[Apocalipstic]

Another recovering Southern Baptist here, is this maybe a theme?

When I found out I had been lied to about Santa Clause, I decided I had also been lied to about there being a God. I was ten. Since my parents were SB missionaries, I lived inside my head and tried to fit in and believe but logically how can we really know what happens after death?

I'm not a scientist, but I believe that we are all made from and connected by electricity.

There are good parts in every religion, though it confuses me how often religion is used as an excuse for really bad behavior.

Thanks for starting this thread, I am very interested in reading and thinking about how we can live in a connected, joyful and humane way without believing in a celestial dude (no disrespect to the FSM, of course )

[weatherboi]

Hey A.J.!! Great thread!!

I too am meandering down a non-theist path and am loving it. My last venture into some sort of Christian worship was Science of Mind. I was introduced to the idea of quantum physics and our ability to create/introduce/manifest, good and bad in our lives through energy or as Medusa put it, forces of electricity (I like that wording).

I read Quantum Enigma. I will admit, I went to see "What the Bleep" and was not to impressed with my interpretation of what they were presenting. This book gave me a believable format/theory to ruminate on and gain a better understanding of how energy and critical thinking can work together.

This site is a good source of info.

http://www.hyponoesis.org/

I enjoyed this article.

http://www.ianthompson.org/papers/Th...ember_2002.pdf

Look forward to reading more here.
Good day!

another good one I reread to help form interpretation
http://www.rosado.net/pdf/Spirituality_SD_3.pdf

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Hey AJ!

I was glad to see you start this thread! A lot of these themes have been circling in my head of late. I, too, was raised in a Southern Baptist environment and this time of year always brings up memories for me of being taught that Christmas was a "Christian" holiday, having discussions with my mom about how "Santa Claus" worked for God, and seeing (in my own child's mind) greed and sloth take over in some areas of my family.

I am also a non-theist at this point in my life and incorporate Buddhist principals into my way of being to feel balanced. I feel more peaceful in my life without the presence of a "God" than I ever did while attending church. I often speak of things that the "universe" provides but I think that for me, when I think of the "universe" it is less about an entity and more about all of those forces of electicity that we create as human beings.

My path of late has brought me back around to wanting to expand my knowledge and thinking about the Quantum. I came across this book on amazon: "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by Bruce Rosenblum" and thought I might give it a read. Do you have any recommendations for interesting reads?

I love how you characterize a "world view" without supernatural considerations. Can you talk more about what that looks like to you?

Great thread!

Medusa:

I'll take the really difficult bit, your last question, first. What I mean by this is that as far as we are able to tell, this is a material universe with no gods, no afterlife, and no 'supernatural' entities or powers. It also is a universe that has no inherent meaning (by which I mean that the universe isn't here to teach us a lesson, it exists for itself). So any meaning I manage to eke out of the universe is my meaning. It also means that I am responsible for what I do in this life, not an afterlife (which I see no evidence for) or reincarnation (which I also see no evidence for). So I am responsible for how I treat others now, in the moment. My motivation for being whatever kind of decent person I can manage is that I prefer the outcomes from behaving in an ethical fashion more than I prefer the outcomes from the alternative.

It also means that I'm responsible for developing wisdom, two bits of which I think are: "you're not going to get everything you want" and "you're going to die". These seem like common sense but a lot of religious/spiritual thought actually seems to go in exactly the opposite direction. Whether it is the belief in an afterlife ("sure, you're going to die but once you die you live forever in heaven) or the idea that through "quantum healing" you need never grow old (an idea that Deepak Chopra espouses) or the ideas behind "The Secret" or "What the Bleep Do We Know", I see all of those espousing the idea that we *can* have anything we want if we just ask the universe for it and we don't have to face our own mortality. I would rather live in a slightly less comfortable world facing life standing up and clear-eyed than in a comfortable world of illusions. This, of course, I do imperfectly.

Lastly, it means appreciating Nature in all of its beauty *and* its ugliness. There are things in Nature that are heart-achingly beautiful and that's *before* we get to human created artifacts like music. Look at the pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope to see what I mean. There are parts of nature that are just unimaginably ugly and cruel--try to think of the last seconds of life of an antelope from its perspective as the lioness' claws tear into its hind flanks to bring it down. Now try to think of what happens to the lioness and her cubs should she fail. Either the antelope ends its life in fear, terror or pain or the lioness and her cubs end their lives in starvation--either way someone has to die. But that's just nature being nature and I can appreciate the sublime beauty of it all. Nature can inspire awe not because it is here for us but because we are its products.

Hopefully that gives you some sense of where I'm coming from.

As far as some good books on quantum theory, I can think of nothing better than "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos" both by Brian Greene. I'm planning on picking up two books by Victor Stenger based upon other books of his I've read. They are "Quantum Gods: Physics and Psychics" and "The Unconscious Quantum".

Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

When I study history I can understand why so many people were/are drawn to religion. Life is not fair, and for many I think that religion could say that even if you had 12 children die of Malaria and a drunken husband who beat you and so on, you could count on many crowns in heaven. When life is really harsh, it has to seem comforting to know that after death, things will be better than anyone alive can even imagine...Except, there is zero proof of heaven or hell, or that we go anywhere after death.

I remember in 5th grade, kids in my class were laughing at the "ridiculous" things the Greeks and Romans believed religiously and I remember saying something about these myths not being very different than Bible stories. In fact, they all sounded like explanations for the unexplainable. The need to know, to be in control of one's future.

Here and now is what counts. How we treat people today. That is all we have really.

[Andrew, Jr.]

I am very open minded, and more of a naturalist than anything else. As for religious beliefs - I am Roman Catholic with a mix of Buddist principles I follow. I am involved in the paranormal, and have been for a number of years.

I left organized religion for well over 20 some odd years, but when my older sister was diagnosed with skin cancer, I tried to bargain with God. I went back to Church, and hoped and prayed that my actions would save her life. She died on Oct. 16, 2008 at home with everyone by her side. I was the very last person to talk to her alive. She went into a coma, and then passed away less than an hour later. I will always treasure that 15 minutes I had with her.

Now I have a more peaceful life than ever before. I do more volunteer work than I have before. I enjoy working at food banks, homeless shelters, and at a local hospice center. However, now that my sister died, I just cannot bring myself to go back to the hospice center.

How I got involved with the paranormal is at the hospice center. See when the dying are transitioning to a new life, it is like a baby being born. It is a process. Unfortunately, some people die alone. And some people die with family surrounding them. For those who are skeptics, I just say this to them...go volunteer for just a day or a few hours at a hospice center. You will see things that you cannot explain. You will feel things that you never felt before. And you will experience life like you never have before. It changes everything you ever thought about or believed in.

Same thing happened to me at NIH in Bethesda. I could walk around Building 10 - that is where some cancer patients go. Jo was on floor 8. However, when she was being taken for Pet Scans, Xrays, Blood Work, or whatever, I would have to walk around. In walking around I would see, feel, and hear things that were not very pleasant. In fact, I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy. I always say cancer sucks. And it does. I am not sure of what is worse, cancer or the treatments.


Namaste,
Andrew

[MsDemeanor]

An Aj thread!!!! And me too damn busy right now to toss in my two cents worth!!!!

I'll be back. You've all been warned.

[weatherboi]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

An Aj thread!!!! And me too damn busy right now to toss in my two cents worth!!!!

I'll be back. You've all been warned.

Oy Vey everybody scatter!!!

[Linus]

AJ, I've been reading this thread and am very interested in this discussion. I'll admit to a very naive understanding of things and apologize in advance if I misinterpret things.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

As far as some good books on quantum theory, I can think of nothing better than "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos" both by Brian Greene. I'm planning on picking up two books by Victor Stenger based upon other books of his I've read. They are "Quantum Gods: Physics and Psychics" and "The Unconscious Quantum".

Cheers
Aj

When I saw these references (particularly the Elegant Universe) I thought it had sound familiar. I had started reading the string theory when the book first got released but never finished them (damn life interfering with my reading). I now have a reason to read them again (plus additional ones). I'll have more to add (likely after the holidays) and a questions to it.

For now, I'll ask the following. Are we using science today to define the universe as we see it with the tools we have and eliminating other answers just on the basis of not having the tools or knowledge yet to see those? Historically, we once thought the earth was the center of the universe (we know this to be Chicago or Toronto, depending on who you talk to). We didn't see it otherwise until we got the tools (e.g., better telescopes and such) to see our mistake.

Faith is based on an unconditional belief of the things we cannot define. Science, in some regards, is also like this. We believe wholeheartedly that science answers things fully but in fact, to my limited understanding, much of it is based on what we understand at this point. There is still a lot of theory out there. For example, even string theory supposes different universes/dimensions (science fiction has espoused that in a variety of ways -- Star Trek Original version, Turtledove's novels, other alternate history novels, Fringe TV show, etc. are more recent examples) but I have yet to see or feel or experience these. Perhaps it's a limitation to my personal knowledge (unable to see the actual with the naked eye doesn't mean it doesn't exist.. or does it?) that I cannot see these dimensions beyond my basic 5 (6?) senses but it strikes me that in some ways, we have replaced faith in God(s) <insert deity of choice here> in faith in science. We quantify things and therefore believe it to be the truth.

But that quantification may only be on the tools we have. It makes me think of the Star Trek movie The Voyage Home where the doctor goes into the hospital and thinks we're a bunch of savages for our cancer treatment and injects a patient with a "cure-all" from the future. Certainly is science fiction but some truth to the human condition of viewing "savages". Are those that have spirituality, faith and belief "savages"? Are scientists of today "savages" for not having all the tools available and just believing the world is based on what we have at hand?

1) If there were really a god, wouldn't there be A God, one god, a singular god?

If I can try answer your question with a question: why do we not only have one language to communicate with and one human presentation rather than the myriad of "selfs" that are out there? I think the reasoning for multiple different definitions of "God" is how we communicate and how we've evolved in different parts of the world. We define it in the language we understand and the experience we have. Cultures define it differently. For example, North American Buddhism (Western Buddhism) is very, very different from Tibetan, Japanese, et al, definitions.

Our experiences are vastly different, our language different, our cultures, etc. If we have a limited view of what the world is, then we will see it in only one context. Is it better to see it in all context or just our one view? I personally prefer many but for others it's too much and they would prefer the world they see it in (e.g., Quakers, Amish, Amazonian tribes that have had no contact). They are happy with their world as they see it and have no need for anything else. They may define things as per a god or gods but it is their understanding.

2) If there were really a god and this god provided a text, wouldn't there be A Text, one single bible or whatever you want to call it?

Instead, there's a bunch of different gods and bunch of different texts and stuff for each religion that prays to each of these gods, and sometimes a single religion will even have a bunch of different texts within that one religion and some people will pick this one and some will pick that one and stuff.

See above. The reality is we define the world in our terms, whether with or without a definition of spirituality. There are many religions today that, IMO, pervert the nature of spirituality (which doesn't mean that one is religious -- at least to me). I find spirituality in the awe of nature. The beauty of a rainbow after a torrential storm; the sorrow of death that nature affords us in these limited bodies with an expiry date.

3) If there were really a god, and kings and other folks went around claiming that the voices in their heads were god telling them to rewrite the texts, wouldn't that god be kinda pissed?

LOL. I'd imagine so (maybe that's why we are the way we are?). The texts are the human mind's definition of life and social contracts between each other. They are not, however, as some "pervert" the true definition of god(s). Some people want to believe so badly, I think, because they want to feel like they belong and that they understand why things are the way they are. They cannot control other stuff and fear that it's the result of something else (e.g., God) at work. Maybe. Maybe not.

To me, the Bible is an interesting quasi-fictional, misinterpreted piece of historical jargon (specifically referring to the King James as that's the one I've had the most exposure to). I recently read "Mis-Quoting Jesus" which delves into how the Bible was created and how it (or rather the letters that were put together to make it) may have potentially misinterpreted due to language variations.

I wonder what they mean by "Almighty God". Christian God, Muslim God, Tribal God? Would they consider Buddha to be a God? How about Goddesses? Is "God" gender-specific? The Parking Goddess - the only deity that exists as far as I am concerned - was very kind to me yesterday. Twice. And I have a witness to prove it. Is she "almighty" enough to pass their test? If they ever had to find a perfect parking space in a busy city on a regular basis, would they possibly reconsider their position on the Parking Goddess? Could I snark on all day about the high level of bullshit that is this unconstitutional law? You betcha.

I find it interesting that here in the US, where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state there really isn't. Canada, which doesn't have that codified, actually does have a separation of church and state. I think a lot of it stems again from historical and cultural founding of this nation. The reality is that it was done from one point of view and it's been hard to dislodge that (people have a hard time letting go of something if they think or perceive that they lose something -- even if they don't)

An interesting article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert..._b_384515.html

This was an interesting piece. I suspect they will need more research on this but perhaps science fiction wasn't that far off (and often times, it isn't -- it's just a precursor of what is yet to come). I guess we really won't know (and even then it's questionable) if it's really true until we die. The idea that our lives restart again or vary over again elsewhere (another universe) would almost lead credence to the idea of reincarnation. And also, to a degree, helps continue the definition that energy doesn't just vanish but continues in another form (how we define that form, I think, is still limited by our tools we have at this time). What was of interest to me was this line:

Immortality doesn't mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether.

If a Christian looked at this, they might say "AHA! Heaven!" while a hindu might say "AHA! Reincarnation!". A buddhist might say "AHA! More time to consider..". The question I'd love to ask is, if we continue into a plane that is outside of time altogether, how do we see things? Is it the same perception I have now? Do I see everything at once? Do I see nothing at all? Do I experience things at all in any sense close to what we do now?


Note: MsDeamenor --> your posts really twinged with me and got me really interested. I found your points very compelling and interesting although they appear, to me, pointed towards a specific kind of religion that seems found here -- nearly uniquely -- in the US in it's behaviour and arrogance (?). Perhaps the Puritan and white male privileged nature of the country's development?

[Apocalipstic]

Very interesting posts! So much to consider.

I do have a question,

What do you think about TV channels like the History Channel having documentaries in which they refer to the Bible like it is actual, documented history. Like everyone is a Christian and for example: it is accepted fact that God cast the Hebrews out of Palestine and so forth (just one teeny example). It seems to me, very religiopolitical, there is definitely an agenda on what is supposed to be a secular documentary.

Also, I think when we believe that God speaks to us, literally, we set things up as inarguable. How can we argue logically with Bush saying that God told him to go to war? The conversation ends there. (this is a small example, happens all the time).

[Andrew, Jr.]

Yellowband,

"Thirteen human embryonic stem-cell lines have been approved for use in federally funded research and approval of many more lines is expected to follow, the head of NIH announced on Dec. 2nd.

Dr. Francis S. Collins, who took over in August, said in a telephone conference with the media that it was a "significant day" in the efforts to achieve President Obama's goal of "a loosing up of what had been considered too stringent requirements" for federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells.

Collins said the 13 stem-cells lines 11 developed at Children's Hospital in Boston and 2 at Rockefeller University in NY - were approved after NIH staff determined the scientists who created the lines had followed the "very detailed informed consetnt process" outlined in NIH guildelines published in July."

By Nancy F. O'Brien, Catholic News Services, Dec. 10th

My late sister, JoAnn, was obviously not treated by these stem cells. Her cancer metasized within one year. The stem cells used on her were very different lines than these. It is my hope and prayer that these NEW LINES will offer hope and life to those who are sick. Melanoma is the deadliest cancers today. The survival rate is maybe 3 years, if that, and with treatment.


Namaste,
Andrew