What diet do you want god to give you?

AliB wrote:Yup, remember it well, Paul.

That's just 'boy cried wolf'.  Clever strategy.  Let's just throw more confusion in the ring....

when it does actually come, most will just assume it's yet another false prediction by yet another lot of crazy nutters.....

Yawn.....

So my experience of religion and one example of how it affected me is irrelevant Ali?
Your way or the highway Ali perhaps?

Did I say it was irrelevant Paul? Of course it wasn't. It was horrible, and very, very stupid.

It damages people, but even worse, it is yet another dagger into people's conception of God.

Some fortunately recognised it was untrue, many were sceptical, but some did actually believe it.

When this system does end, it won't be some bloke who thinks he is the Messiah from Eccles, or Budleigh Salterton or Llandudno who will be the herald.

I think that was my quote Jan.

It is true, that natural food beats processed hands down.

I've enjoyed the challenges on this thread, but its probably gone as far as it can go.

I like to make people think, whatever the subject.

AliB wrote:Did I say it was irrelevant Paul?  Of course it wasn't.  It was horrible, and very, very stupid.

It damages people, but even worse, it is yet another dagger into people's conception of God.

Some fortunately recognised it was untrue, many were sceptical, but some did actually believe it.

When this system does end, it won't be some bloke who thinks he is the Messiah from Eccles, or Budleigh Salterton or Llandudno who will be the herald.  

Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick-It's a common occurrence for me in real life so on the internet it's even harder,but yeah,that's one thing I 100% agree on in that the scaremongers out there just put a dagger into folks perceptions of faith and what it really means,TBH I'm confused by what I really feel as there's been many times in my life that I feel I'm being punished for something I did in a previous life despite not knowing what I must have done to be tested in such a way.

I know I'm very late to this thread and it is running down, but I'd like to throw my tuppence into the hat (is that even an analogy??).  So, here it is:

The 'Logic' of creation

The argument of apparent design in the natural world pointing to a creator god is actually very ancient. I think Cicero put forward similar 'evidence' of creation. It was perhaps most famously presented by the clergyman William Paley who said that if you were to be out walking and come across a pocket watch on the ground it's complexity and fitness for purpose must draw you to the conclusion that it had been constructed by a watchmaker.

He then set forward that since all biology and the very heavens themselves demonstrate such complexity and fitness for purpose that they must also imply a creator.

Until Darwin published On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection that was a difficult position to refute. But Darwin's brain and the theory of evolution give us the simple brilliant explanation of how complexity arises from simplicity.  We don't need to add a hugely complex problem to how we got here (a supernatural creator) we can understand each tiny step in the path from simplicity to complexity using only the principles that Darwin set out.  

The 'logic' of creation cannot do that because it constantly trips up when posed with the question of who made God? The standard response to that is 'no one, God has always existed' but I really can't see how that can hope to be any sort of explanation. In order for creationism to work you have to start with an inordinately complex unexplained assertion; that an omnipotent, omniscient entity is step one. How does that make any sense at all? If it were at all plausible would there not be some sort of evidence for God's work, would alternatives be even more unlikely? It think there would but there are none; life, the world, the Universe are exactly as you would expect them to be without calling on a supernatural creator.

With evolution you can say; once the building blocks for life are have been produced by the act of creation; the big bang, and once you get the initial self replicating precursor to life then you are off and given time all the life we see and all the life that has ever been can develop and be explained.

Can we demonstrate that first step; the self replicating molecule? No, we can't but that doesn't mean it didn't happen; perhaps it is crushingly unlikely to happen but we know it happened at least once; because here we are thinking about it.

There are lots of theories though on how organic molecules can form (proteins, amino acids and the like) including a pretty great experiment whereby if you mix water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen plus send electric charges through them you get amino acids forming naturally.  The atmosphere of early Earth is thought to resemble that combination and there would have been giant thunder storms to blow Benjamin Franklin's mind; so the ingredients were in place.

The fact that we don't have the answer doesn't mean that there isn't an answer or that the answer is supernatural.

Arguments for design

There are many many examples of why supernatural design is unlikely to be responsible for the world we see around us. A main one is that if God had designed everything he would at best be slapdash and at worst incompetent.  What we see though is that evolution is not a perfect watchmaker it makes do rather than applying Steve Jobs style requirements to its 'products'. Consider your eye (which for all its majesty has been shown to evolve separately about 7 times I believe); it's wiring is back to front. The blood vessels for your retina are in front of your retina not behind; this means your brain has to 'clean up' all the images it processes to remove the web of blood vessels from your sight.  

Or perhaps consider nipples on men; what are they for? Well nothing; they are there because in embryology gender selection doesn't take place until about 4 weeks after the fertilisation of the egg and by that time proteins have been manufactured for nipples.

Those examples are quite fun and benign but on a more sinister point if God designed everything then he also designed all those parasites that are killing babies right now throughout the world (and have successfully killed them since hominids first walked the African plains). He also designed every disease and plague that has lain waste to our species and to every other species that has ever existed. Ebola; killing children now; that's his. That is very difficult to explain if you believe in some sort of  Anglican God with a beard and a jumper minding his flock. It is not at all difficult to explain if you see all life that ever existed as the product of constantly varying evolutionary arms races.

Another common 'design' argument is the 'fact' that the earth appears constructed for our every need; that it exists in the 'goldilocks zone' around the sun (neither too hot nor too cold) and that physics itself is dependent upon a very tight set of parameters which if changed at all would not allow the fundamental laws of gravity, motion and the like to exist. So, this has all been done for us? How about approaching that from the other direction; because those conditions exist we can exist; if the Universe didn't have the specific set of attributes allowing gravity to work then nothing and no-one would be here. Perhaps in the incalculable ark of time trillions of such waste land Universes have existed and life, planets and stars only every appear when the conditions are right; you don't need a designer for that you need luck and a long long time.

There is beautiful Douglas Adams analogy about this which is as follows:

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

What actually is evolution?

"Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly" Richard Dawkins.

For evolution to occur you need organic cells to make copies of themselves, you need copying errors and you need selection pressures; some copies will do better in the environment they are in than others and will thereby provide a greater number of copies of themselves than their less successful peers. If this process is given enough time great complexity (our brains) can arise out of very simple replications.  There is nothing random or chance based about the selection of the successful copies the only chance element here is in the copying errors; and as has been said most of those will be disadvantageous.

Evolution often gets attacked for the wrong reasons; one of which you mention above Ali; there is no 'end point' to evolution. All evolution does is select genes that are good at reproducing in their environment. It has no purpose or intent. The corollary is that it removes those genes that are or become less well adapted to the world around them.

The evidence for evolution is also not in doubt; there is excellent evidence from fossil evidence, biological evidence of similar characteristics in related species, geological distribution of fossils, experimental evidence demonstrating selection and adaptive advantage, observational evidence (the white to black peppered moth in industrial cities in England for example), and the killer evidence that is DNA.

The evolution of morality

To claim that the bible holds any particularly original moral thought requires one to disregard all moral philosophy that predates it. The golden rule (do unto others) runs like a thread from the Babylonians some 2,000 before Christ, right through Greek philosophy and on to all other major religions. The bible is far from alone in highlighting it.

In the Old Testament ('borrowed' shall we say in its entirety from the Jewish Torah) the Decalogue as supposedly handed down to Moses is surprisingly free of ethics; instead it's a kind of branding exercise for God and a generally patriarchal society with a few almost cliched moral statements added on. Could it really be suggested that the Israelites, or any culture, could have even existed if murder and theft was seen as a generally acceptable practice? Did those ancient people really get shown the tablets and think; "wow - that's radical! I never thought to stop killing and stealing. Moses is onto something."

I'd go further than say that the morality put forward in the holy books is nothing new; I'd suggest that there is no morality in the holy books. The Bible is rife with the most appallingly bad behavior on behalf of God and his followers, slavery, rape, murder are all fine apparently as long as God is on your side. Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, along with turning the other cheek also brought us the concept of hell. A vicious and morally contradictory nonsense that has done untold psychological damage over the ages. How dare anyone threaten children with this rubbish. You and your family will burn in hell if you don't believe in this text so says a God who 'loves' you. Is that 'free will'?!

But alas that is the crux of the morality presented by the Abrahamic religions; do as we say and you get good stuff, disobey and you get tortured for all eternity. That's not morality that is coercion. It is a patriarchal power play on an epic scale; don't question just do.  It's also how I deal with my children but with sweeties and the naughty step instead of paradise and hell, but the same thing essentially. I do that because they are not old enough to make informed decisions about core issues like broccoli and bedtime but once they are I'll stop with the threats and promises and we'll talk about why one should behave well; that is most certainly not something I could look forward to in religious terms.

If morality isn't God given, how can it be explained in a world red in tooth and claw? Quite easily as it turns out. Social animals tend to increase their chances of survival. This is why you see it again and again in a wide cross section of species. Traits that enhance and support social integration will be selected for on an evolutionary basis. So psychological tendencies, such as empathy and even altruism will be selected for where the brain function is sophisticated enough for that to apply and where the behaviour doesn't self select against the individual in question. It should also be noted that the opposite is also true; appearing to be altruistic whilst being self-serving will be strongly selected for if you can get away with it.

The consolations of religion, the sincerity of belief

If religion doesn't help us much with how we got here or why we should behave well why is it so prevalent and why do so many apparently rational people fundamentally put their faith in it?

I don't doubt for a second the sincerity of anyone's belief and don't think any less of anyone who believes; I just happen to think that they are wrong.

Religion was born from the beginnings of human culture and like science and philosophy tried to provide answers to the big questions of life. It also provides undoubtable consolations to those who believe; the greatest being that death is not the end. Loved ones will be seen again and the lost will be returned. Those are powerful attractions that draw right upon the core elements of what makes us human.

The fact that the answers provided by religion are not true is hurtful to the faithful but if you consider the extent of the hubris the early proponents of religion had making this stuff up I hope you will begin to become angry about these claims. What worse lie can you tell a grieving parent than 'do as I say and you'll see you child again'? Think on that a while.

Just because I am comforted by the thought that one day I will win the lottery does not mean that I am going to win the lottery.

Religion also sits well with how we are wired in terms of being social animals; it provides consolation to those at the bottom of the pile and power to those at the top. It was only a few of hundred years ago that Europeans began to overthrow their monarchs even though those very kings and queens had been 'appointed by God' and only about 150 years ago that Marx made the scandalous (but self evidently true) statement that 'religion is the opium of the people'.

I think the world would be an immeasurably better place if we could all put this aside; live the life we have now, realise that our time is short and its later than you think, that the most distant tribe in Australia or the Amazon are still our kin and worthy of our respect and love. The golden rule is a great thing and should be taught by itself without all the baggage that is attached to it and even though we understand how our brains have evolved to be capable of love we should wholeheartedly embrace it; because as that great philosopher Nat King Cole said; 'the greatest thing that we can learn is to love and be loved in return'.

We don't need imaginary gods, heavens and hell; we need each other.

Best

Dillinger

Dillinger, as usual excellent. However, I suspect we both know you write in vain when up against the minds that considered the following a concise  depiction of human development:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=creation+museum&newwindow=1&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=74YhVPOUHYaWO-3kgKAG&ved=0CEQQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=775

This guy has a grip on reality, and is very funny. Warning contains some swearing.

Phew. Bit overwhelming all that. Hmm. A few interesting points.

Here's one...

Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?

By Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. and Joseph Calkins, M.D.*

Introduction

The so-called backwards retina is an example of an argument against creationism long ago disproved. Nonetheless, it is one of the most common arguments used by Darwinists to argue that life was not designed. For example, one of the leading American Darwinists, Brown University Professor Kenneth Miller, claimed that a prime example of "poor design" is the fact that light in the human eye has to travel through the neuron layers before it reaches the retina photoreceptors. He argues that this design reflects poorly on an Intelligent Designer and, to Miller, provides clear evidence that no designer exists. Rather, it demonstrates to him that the eye evolved by mutations and natural selection and was not designed. In the words of Miller, an Intelligent Designer would not have placed the neural wiring of the retina on the side facing incoming light. This arrangement scatters the light, making our vision less detailed than it might be, and even produces a blind spot at the point that the wiring is pulled through the light-sensitive retina to produce the optic nerve that carries visual messages to the brain (1999, p. 101).

The blind spot does not reduce vision quality for several reasons. Special tests are normally required to even notice it because the other eye fills in the gap. Furthermore, the brain only uses information from the retina to construct an image and does an excellent job of dealing with other "blind spots" such as shadows, reflection problems, dim light, and dirt on a person's glasses. Shermer claims that the human eye is not just "poorly designed" but the anatomy of the human eye shows that it is anything but "intelligently designed." It is built upside down and backward, with photons of light having to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells, before reaching the light-sensitive rods and cones that will transduce the light signal into neural impulses (2005, p. 186).



Williams adds that not only human eyes, but those of "all other vertebrates, have the functionally stupid upside-down orientation of the retina" and that the "functionally sensible arrangement is in fact what is found in the eye of a squid and other mollusks" (1997, pp. 9-10). An evaluation of this argument reveals it is not only naive, but grossly erroneous.

The Findings of Research

Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the "inverted" design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a "verted" design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, the retinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.

The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a "steady stream of the vital molecule retinal" to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28). The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.

The photoreceptors and retinal epithelium absorb an enormous amount of light on a continuous basis when the eyes are open. Because the light is converted largely into heat, the retina must have a very effective cooling system, again provided by the choroidal blood supply directly behind the pigment epithelium. If the pigment epithelium tissue were placed in front of the retina, sight would be seriously compromised. Reversing the retina so that it faces away from the pigment epithelium would also compromise sight to the degree that sight would be impossible because the photoreceptors must be embedded in the retinal pigment epithelium to obtain the nutrients required to function.

This design is extremely critical because the retina requires a high metabolism level due to the continual replacement of the photoreceptors required for vision. Consequently, the retina uses more oxygen and nutrients than almost every other part of the body, requiring an ample blood supply. The verted design would not allow the rods and cones to function properly because of the blood supply required for their high rate of metabolism. If the photoreceptors were in front of the neurons, the blood supply would have to be either directly in the light path of the receptors, or on their side, which would significantly reduce the number of photoreceptors used for sight.

Importantly, placing the retina neural components in front of the photoreceptors does not produce an optical handicap for several reasons. One reason is the neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light. Consequently, very little or no scattering or diffraction occurs, and the light travels through this area as if it was at near-perfect transparency. Secondly, when viewed under the microscope, most cells are largely transparent (and it is for this reason stains, such as Eosin-Y and Hematoxylin 2, are needed to better visualize the various cell parts). Consequently, the thin layer of cells in front of the retina rods and cones have a negligible light blocking effect.

In the retina region which has the highest resolution, the central retina (the fovea and, in particular, the foveola), the neurons in front of the photoreceptors are shifted to the side so that light has a direct pathway to them, resulting in the least distortion where it matters most. The high resolution macula also uses cones that are more tightly packed to achieve high resolution color vision. The peripheral retina has lower resolution and consists of mostly rods for black and white vision.

This design is a highly effective method to accurately transmit enormous amounts of data along the optic nerve in a method analogous to the zipping and unzipping of a computer file to facilitate computer file transmission. To function, the transmission must be very rapid because the image needs to be refreshed continuously like a pixel TV image. The eye's design actually appears to be optimized around the physical limits of the visible light spectrum (Calkins 1986).

The pigment epithelium tissue performs numerous other functions critical for retina viability and activity. One is that it phagocytosises ten percent of the mass of each photoreceptor outer segment on a diurnal schedule, and constantly restores the chromophore to 11-cis-retinal from its all-trans configuration, permitting visual pigment synthesis and regeneration (Dowling 1987, p. 198). It also is part of the outer blood-retinal barrier, helps maintain water and ion flow between the neural retina and the choroid, protects against free radical damage, and regulates retinoid metabolism (Martínez-Morales, et al., 2004, p. 766).

This short review covers only a few of the many reasons for the superiority of the existing design of the mammalian retina. Our knowledge now shows that the retina design is superior to what we understood even just a few short years ago. Gratitude rather than impertinence seems the more appropriate response to its ingenious design.

Note: I wish to thank Jody Allen for her review of an earlier draft of this article.

References

Bergman, Jerry. 2000. "Is the Inverted Human Eye a Poor Design?" Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 52(1):18-30, March.
Calkins, Joseph L. 1986. "Design in the Human Eye." Bible-Science Newsletter. March. pp. 1-2.
Dowling, John E. 1987. The Retina: An Approachable Part of the Brain. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Kolb, Helga. 2003. "How the Retina Works." American Scientist. 91:28-35.
Martínez-Morales, Juan Ramón, Isabel Rodrigo, and Paola Bovolenta. 2004. "Eye Development: A View from the Retina Pigmented Epithelium." BioEssays. 26:766-777.

well lay me down and fart on my head! Dillinger if you wrote that, and i believe you did, you are the cleverest person i ever came across and i am privileged to have been in the same air as you, my gast is flabbered, you have converted me, there is a god, its you

Andy12345 wrote:well lay me down and fart on my head! Dillinger if you wrote that, and i believe you did, you are the cleverest person i ever came across and i am privileged to have been in the same air as you, my gast is flabbered, you have converted me, there is a god, its you

I've probably said this before but when Dillinger posts-you know it's going to be good! If Dillinger forms the church of Joe Strummer then count me in!

This could go on and on. You have your belief, I have mine.

We are on tangents travelling in different directions.

Your perception of God is not the God I know.

Only time will tell.....

PS. I never get that humankind apparently could have started from nothing - as in, where did the amoeba, or 'primal soup' come from, yet God isn't allowed to have always existed? It's the age old chicken and egg saga. It's all guesswork and theory, smoke and mirrors. No one living now was actually there to tell the tale.

But I know which side of the fence I would rather be standing on. I have nothing to lose....

It seems to me, convincing a believer, or non believer, into changing their views on the big question, is an impossible task. But this pales into insignificance, compared to trying to convince a carboholic or the average dietitian, filling your face with carbs and refined junk, and consuming a bag full of dodgy meds, is not the best way to go for a diabetic.

Am I right, or am I right ?

Eddie

Andy12345 wrote:well lay me down and fart on my head! Dillinger if you wrote that, and i believe you did, you are the cleverest person i ever came across and i am privileged to have been in the same air as you, my gast is flabbered, you have converted me, there is a god, its you

You grovelling git !

Eddie

grovelling? dont you grovel for gain? i want nuffink from dillinger apart from him to keep writing

Ah, I'm blushing. Thank you.

I didn't actually write that though; I copied it from The Early Writings Of Sid Bonkers. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day...*

I like the idea of the Church Of Strummer; ask yourself this; what would Joe do? Beware that the answer might be 'go and get drunk in Spain'.

Best

Dillinger

*false modesty aside, all my own work, especially the mistakes.

Dillinger wrote:Ah, I'm blushing. Thank you.

I didn't actually write that though; I copied it from The Early Writings Of Sid Bonkers. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day...*

I like the idea of the Church Of Strummer; ask yourself this; what would Joe do? Beware that the answer might be 'go and get drunk in Spain'.

Best

Dillinger

*false modesty aside, all my own work, especially the mistakes.

lmao, that freaked me out for a sec

Dillinger wrote:Ah, I'm blushing. Thank you.

I didn't actually write that though; I copied it from The Early Writings Of Sid Bonkers. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day...*

I like the idea of the Church Of Strummer; ask yourself this; what would Joe do? Beware that the answer might be 'go and get drunk in Spain'.

Best

Dillinger

*false modesty aside, all my own work, especially the mistakes.

My daughter gets married soon ! Can you write my speech lol ! You have a great knack of explaining things which are easily understood :-)

AliB wrote:This could go on and on.  You have your belief, I have mine.  

We are on tangents travelling in different directions.

Your perception of God is not the God I know.

Only time will tell.....

PS.  I never get that humankind apparently could have started from nothing - as in, where did the amoeba, or 'primal soup' come from, yet God isn't allowed to have always existed?  It's the age old chicken and egg saga.  It's all guesswork and theory, smoke and mirrors.  No one living now was actually there to tell the tale.

But I know which side of the fence I would rather be standing on.  I have nothing to lose....

I admire those with strong faith and beliefs as much as those with opposing views. To dissuade anyone otherwise is nigh on impossible.

Dillinger wrote:Ah, I'm blushing. Thank you.

I didn't actually write that though; I copied it from The Early Writings Of Sid Bonkers. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day...*

I like the idea of the Church Of Strummer; ask yourself this; what would Joe do? Beware that the answer might be 'go and get drunk in Spain'.

Best

Dillinger

*false modesty aside, all my own work, especially the mistakes.

Dillinger I agree with the others. That was brilliant. As someone who used to have a strong faith I found your argument compelling. However I have a question. Whilst I can believe there is no Creator God, I still believe that there is some kind of spirit realm which we don't understand. I don't believe in ghosts at all and I realize that the majority of the 'unexplained' do have simple rational explanations. I have experienced things (both good and bad) that I can only describe as spiritual. One of these occurrences was during my atheist years and it is what made me revisit the idea of God again. So are you going to tell me that's it's all in my imagination? Send for the men in the white coats? Coincidence? Or is there some sort of spiritual evolution as well as the physical one? If I tried I could explain away some of the things that happened to me, but not all, not even using the 'stopped clock' method. To me, seeing is believing.

I think I already know what you are going to say. I'm leaving now.

eddie1 wrote:

Zand, it is possible to be a spiritual person without being religious in the conventional sense. In fact, I believe organised religions such as the monotheistic big three, Judaism, Christianity and Islam prevent a persons innate spirituality and experience of this through prohibition and fear. Each believes that theirs is the "true" and "right " way , and even sub divisions of these three believe that they are correct, and everyone else has got it wrong. When you think about it, it's incredibly arrogant  and it's no surprise that more wars , torture, and repression
have been created by adherents of the big three than anything else . Imposition of a belief system on other people through fear, coercion, bribery or empty promises of something that cannot be proved or experienced all comes down to one thing - control. If that sounds familiar, it is very similar to politics and that is no accident, organised religions were politically motivated, created by man.

The Old Testament is a history of a peoples and yes, it's a fascinating one , but has it's own agendas due to the times in which it was written. There is an interesting article here that doesn't cover the whole, but gives the gist : http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/11OT.htm

The New Testament has been closely scrutinised by objective scholars, and the existence of the historical Jesus has more or less been disproved. Again, a political agenda exists ( for those times ) , and  much has been written about this  Here is just one example, but there are many more : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

If belief in a religion brings comfort and direction to an individual, then all well and good. But the underlying belief that their belief and their belief alone is the correct one is also dangerous and causes division At best this can be judgemental  on a personal level such as " this person is a bad person, because they do not follow my way " " All that is said or written as a critique of my beliefs is inspired by satan " to what is the ultimate evil ironically - " those that do not follow my way, or disagree with aspects of my way, must be eliminated " . The bible, unfortunately is full of such examples .

I am not saying that all folks that believe in a form of monotheism think this way,only that that political and control aspects underpin them all, and that is bad news for mankind   Even in Ancient Egypt, monotheism was imposed on a polytheistic peoples by Akhenaten, and that didn't end well    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/10561090/Akhenaten-mad-bad-or-brilliant.html

The good news is, there are many many more avenues of spirituality to be explored, often experiental and based on personal gnosis. And even better, there is no one who can tell you that what you believe and experience is wrong, because it doesn't fit within a dogma.

Oh, and that judgement issue - a heathen does not mean " godless " . Indeed, the original heathens ( people of the Heath ) were polytheistic and had a code of honour that was more about orthopraxy ( right action ) than orthodoxy ( right belief ) . It was about people, not appeasement of the divine . https://www.ragweedforge.com/havamal.html
And oddly, they didn't belief that there was sacred word that needed to be followed to the letter or else have terrible repercussions in the afterlife, nor did they believe that theirs was the only way. The Venerable Bede and Tacitus wrote how tribal leaders took the crosses offered by the missionaries of the " White Christ " and put them on their pagan altars to the horror of the missionaries. They were the Native Americans of the Northern Lands, and more or less what happened to the Native Americans and their repression  and genocide happened in Northern Europe too as a result of the coming of Christianity.

Don't take my word for it - there is a huge quantity of history to back this up. History is not always a flattering   version of the  stories of the winners,  a study of the political and economic reasons for the adoption of a desert religion in countries all over the world and the devastation that followed make a person realise that maybe, just maybe, a organised religion that originated in a different culture is not a good one.

There are other forms of spirituality, even within atheism or agnostiscm that are kinder and more accepting of personal belief. It just takes a little more rummaging under the layers of the dominating ( and I use that word deliberately ) religions to find them. And guess what ? There will be no repercussions from an outraged divinity in this life or a next one as a result. The only fear and confusion about seeking your own path comes from other human beings.

A wise person once said " There are many paths up the same mountain " And even wiser person once said " there is more than one mountain. And the mountains don't care that there are other mountains "

Signy

mo1905 wrote:

My daughter gets married soon ! Can you write my speech lol ! You have a great knack of explaining things which are easily understood :-)

Of course; as long as I can make up everything I say!

zand wrote:  I have experienced things (both good and bad) that I can only describe as spiritual.  One of these occurrences was during my atheist years and it is what made me revisit the idea of God again.  So are you going to tell me that's it's all in my imagination?  Send for the men in the white coats?  Coincidence?  Or is there some sort of spiritual evolution as well as the physical one?  If I tried I could explain away some of the things that happened to me, but not all, not even using the 'stopped clock' method.  To me, seeing is believing.

I think I already know what you are going to say. I'm leaving now.

I think one can certainly be spiritual without having to be religious, if you've seen things that you don't understand or miracles and the like it's a difficult one; but I suppose in terms of likelihood it's more likely that something funny has gone on in your brain than that a supernatural event has occurred (i.e that the natural order of the world and Universe has been suspended/overthrown in that instance).

There is a pub/sailing club in the small fishing village where my family hail from in Scotland that always had a reputation for being haunted. One quiet afternoon the barman served too old members who were visiting the pub for the first time in a long time and when he put their drinks on the bar he looked up to see that they had gone. He looked around the whole bar and couldn't find them.  There is (alleged - I haven't seen it) CC TV footage of him chatting to no-one and then getting a shock and running around to the front of the bar.  I thought that was really interesting in that that is a classic ghost story; but there was no-one there; it must on the evidence that we have (if it exists - like I said I haven't seen it) have been going on in his mind. Google 'Findhorn Sailing Club Ghost' for more chills...

I would be happy to convert for evidence; I just haven't seen any that in any way convinces me. I'd love there to be a heaven and endless play with your loved ones when you die, but it seems that the chances of that happening are more than remote. I may be wrong but I'm not counting on it.

Best

Dillinger