romansh

I think the question is flawed at some fundamental level. Is anything just? Does "justness" exist? And then we can move on to: is any part of existence "just"?

An animated poem from an atheistic point of view. Warning may contain Australians and language. Storm

Have you read Joseph Campell at all? His four purposes of religion assp awe - to give us a sense of awe with respect to existence. science - to provide a scientific explanation of existence. society - to give us guidelines on how to meander our way through existence. psyche - to give us an insight into how existence shapes our inner workings. Of course, there are other aspects of our lives that have passed religion by. Telescopes and microscopes definitely give me a sense of awe. Science itself has left religion in the dust as explanations of existence go. Our societal structures like the judicial system and government certainly provide comprehensive and adaptable guidelines. I would argue the young science of psychology has a way to go to catch up to give us reliable insights into our psyche.

Thanks ... I think I understand. This origins in some reality is it natural in that there is no so called Godly intervention?

Thanks Rob, Can I ask a direct question? Do you believe about two thousand years ago an angel came to someone called Mary or Maryam or whatever it is in Aramaic and foretold of some kind of a divine birth where a literal son of God would be born? And then this actually happened? Just trying to clarify what you really believe.

I always have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. Assuming it is our objective to bring Qataris into our tent, then what is the best method? Boycott? I ask the same question for Russians. Here I really struggle.

Welcome Rob I like Herefordshire. My summer holidays in my childhood were often spent in/near Almeley and the wife's sister now lives near Lyons Hall.

Since then, May, Boris and Truss. May was dealt an impossible hand, Johnson ... what can I say. And Truss.

I wonder if and when the electorate and population at large will recognize their role.

Many countries are beginning to look more populist. Looking out for number one so to speak. A milestone was Cameron agreeing to a referendum to shut up the Brexiters. And yet the people as a whole voted for something that made no sense and was likely to be against their own interest. It was UK's Trump moment. I suppose it is simply this bit of the universe unfolding.

Hi and welcome 'goose I can't really answer in the spirit of your question. But growing up I would put down Lutheran on forms etc. Did not really believe the stuff, especially any literalist interpretations. I would fool myself (my interpretation) into accepting the Bible as a mixture of history and metaphor. Mainly the latter. In my late teens and mid-twenties, I drifted into agnosticism and never really left. And depending on one's definition I could be considered an atheist. The militant stage of atheism was not a requisite path for me. But pointing out, what are for me, nonsensical aspects of other people's positions does not seem militant. Would you not argue for say vaccination of your loved ones or even that of strangers? That one cares about an issue does not make one a militant. Now, your description above seems to imply because one does not believe in a Christian interpretation of God that makes you an atheist. You don't mention the other flavours of gods like: deism, pantheism, or others of the ilk? Of course, some Evangelists would consider these effectively atheism. For me, Christianity holds little attraction, but funnily enough, a high school RI teacher taught us that Jesus taught from his own experience. This seems like good advice for all of us. Learn from the universe and live our lives there. It's OK to say I don't know. ps a militant agnostic bumper sticker: I don't know and neither do you.

Here are Gulley's Humanist 5 and 6 Agree with the gist, but I am having a hard time getting excited by all this.

Here's a quote that sort of intrigues me: The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other.Kurt Gödel

Don't know what's up with Paul ... he seems to be not around much. I am well.

Hi Tariki 🙂

Humanist 4 I am beginning to find him a little repetitive. Though this bit was interesting ... a glimpse under the Vatical veil It would seem that all the colonels etc. seem to have some suasion.

Jordan is bit of a pariah in some circles. Stephen I always find a delight. It's a bit long, but I think worth it.

Hi David ... any update on the outcomes of the discussions?

Supposedly by Alan Watts. I have not been able to verify. But the quote has an interesting point to make regardless whoever said it.

This is interesting ... from a scientific point of this does not seem true. From a logical point of view, it certainly does not seem to make sense. Biblically, the Bible is more or less silent on the topic of free will. Though Christian apologists will quote lots of scripture that says we make choices. The topic of free will is not about choices, but our wills certainly affect the choices we do make. Of course without free will, the Biblical salvation story we are told makes no sense. To believe in free will we have to deny cause and effect and think of ourselves as a God.

Welcome Lily I presume you are in Canada... I'm in southern rural BC. I also presume you are familiar with Gretta Vosper ... she is featured here as an author.. I have seen/heard her speak, she seems eminently sensible to me.

Humanist 3 Here Gulley ponders what the most dangerous day in history was. An interestingly line of thinking: Now of course if we take a look at this question through my world view ... any particular day is simply the sum of all the antecedent days. And here we just draw an arbitrary line in the sand and give it special significance. But in this particular example Gulley almost takes an atheistic point of view to the question. Interesting. Don't particularly agree with 2) but we certainly have developed the concept of right and wrong. Also while we are self aware, I would argue this self awareness is incredibly limited and it is this limited self awareness is from where our feeling of free will stems. Hmmn ... when my football team loses I am unhappy ... the opposing team is being immoral? But to be fair to Gulley, this is a consequentialist argument that many non believers will go for. So where would we but Ukraine fighting back? Is this moral and should we worry about it being moral? In Rex Weyler's book The Jesus Sayings, Weyler suggests that one of the few lines we can can reliably ascribe to Jesus is to not trust those that speak for God. Here I tend to agree with Gulley, though the actual thing that is dangerous is believing someone is actually speaking for God. Also, I would argue that we not trust anyone who does not take a slightly agnostic stance on life, universe and everything. By all means we can argue passionately for a particular point of view.

A bit like Humanist/2 Unfathomable, and yet in the rest of the essay Gulley begins to fathom it? Obviously this fathoming requires a lot of education, experimentation and verification never mind hard work. Generally I agree with Gulley's sense of awe (I am presuming here). I have that sense of awe too. For me awe, is what passes as spirituality. The question I would like to ask Gulley, Why do we have to filter this through the lens of Christianity? OK, I suspect Gulley being a Quaker might quietly answer, We don't. Having said that, that to reach his "audience" (wrong word) he has to use this particular lever. Paul ... have you sent Phil Gulley a link to these discussions?

Well .. have sort of being saying this for awhile ... have I not? There is no inductive "proof". All we can do is postulate and find corroborating or conflicting evidence. So without giving us any of the "Properties of God®" then this line of thought are empty calories. Sounds good, but a waste of time. I think Gulley is accurate on the evolution/awareness bit, but Gulley here begs the question. He is assuming right and wrong exist in the their own right. But this alleged God in Genesis 3 counsels us not to think in terms of right and wrong. Well here at least Gulley defines by what means by moral, and it is similar to the way many secularists might define morality. Philosophically it might be labelled Consequentialism. I think Consequentialism might be a good rule of thumb, but then there is the Buddhist line of thought, life is suffering. And the Campbellian observation, You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation. And here Gulley seems to beg the question that we want to live a life where there is no evil or suffering? Just as a style suggestion I would provide a link to Gulley's piece and highlight a few bits and comment on them.

Phil Gulley I presume? He seems to be writing to a certain religious demographic. This is the basis for an old joke: Parable of the drowning man. A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe. "Better get in, Preacher. The waters are rising fast." "No," says the preacher. "I have faith in the Lord. He will save me." Still the waters rise. Now the preacher is up on the balcony, wringing his hands in supplication, when another guy zips up in a motorboat. "Come on, Preacher. We need to get you out of here. The levee's gonna break any minute." Once again, the preacher is unmoved. "I shall remain. The Lord will see me through." After a while the levee breaks, and the flood rushes over the church until only the steeple remains above water. The preacher is up there, clinging to the cross, when a helicopter descends out of the clouds, and a state trooper calls down to him through a megaphone. "Grab the ladder, Preacher. This is your last chance." Once again, the preacher insists the Lord will deliver him. And, predictably, he drowns. A pious man, the preacher goes to heaven. After a while he gets an interview with God, and he asks the Almighty, "Lord, I had unwavering faith in you. Why didn't you deliver me from that flood?" God shakes his head. "What did you want from me? I sent you two boats and a helicopter."