151. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54164 by Downunder on July 5, 2007 at 7:49 pm

alovrin post1082. Think about it : whether we like it or not, "holy books", the law (is an ass) and regulations rule our world. You are at liberty to rave. Shouldn't others also be allowed to do whatever they feel like with the proviso that they must not stand on our toes?
The ultimate truth is just beyond science's horizon, so I can't help with that one but I wouldn't be surprised if "Ultimate Truth" has already been grabbed as a band's name. It takes all sorts to make a world. Seeya.

152. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54049 by Downunder on July 5, 2007 at 5:14 am

Re _ J _'s post1055.Hi J, you seem ok, you have an open mind and I thank you for your thoughts. Whether God does or does not exist is not a fair question for anyone to answer. My human intelligence can not prove nor disprove such existence and I am waiting for anyone to come up with ideas. I have mine, and Dianelos has found and explained his way of believing and is trying very hard to find someone to come up on this site with a better alternative. I'll make a separate post for him. History shows that the masses need "religions" including a god-concept with human attributes and holy books with incredible stories. Dawkins is nicely stirring things up at science level, school and parents level, making headlines with sharp and simple statements. But I consider that teaching, including some religion, is an inherent parental / school task, passing-on whatever prior generations have learned. It is up to the scientists to educate the adults. Science has as yet no better alternative for the God-concept or evidence of the ultimate truth.
Your closing line is superior to my "live and let live" but even harder to strive for. Have a good break.

153. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54013 by Downunder on July 5, 2007 at 12:39 am

Dear DrBenway, post1052, thanks for your pontifical sanction of my occasional presence on this site. Benedict will be pleased with you. While you are of generous spirit could you please reverse the aspect of the bird in your Avatar? Impressions from this site may be misleading. You may prove that by removing the impression of all of us being "shot" upon from the tail end. No need to spend another post on it. Action speaks louder than words.
It may disappoint you but I am not in the "Good on ya mate" category. I have suffered soccer matches on rare occasions but have managed to dodge "Aussie footy", and cricket for that matter. I 'do' sport, rather than watch others. Professional sport is paid entertainment.
All this has little to do with TGD but I will make up for that by mentioning you in a post for Dianelos when I get around to that.

154. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53783 by Downunder on July 3, 2007 at 6:09 am

To all you backslapping atheistic scientists on this site: you are just trying to outsmart each other. Watching from the side-line I think the score is 8/10 Dianelos, 0/10 for the non-believing-unless-God-proven scientists. You scientists use lots of impressive jargon and I find it amusingly educational to see how Dianelos with equally impressive jargon, patiently keeps bouncing back the ball. DrB and now alvorin are showing signs of frustration, bad loosers? Loosers you are, because from the side line I am anxiously awaiting to read amongst all your blah blah what your suggestions are for the world's predicaments. You seem to have your minds in the scientific clouds, theorising at length to find a ray of sunshine of which you know, but cannot prove, that it will be just a few meters away. How long will it take you to provide proof with a clear yes or no so the rest of us can get a lead on why we are here and what we should do in our daily "hunting & gathering". Should we just carry on killing and stealing, locally and globally? We need advice; we can no longer trust religions. At the non-productive rate you are going, and by the sample you display here sofar, w'll all be dead long before you come up with the answers. It is easy to point to a lack of proof on the religious side, we have suffered that for generations. Why don't you concentrate on producing a better Holy Book, a Science based Bible for the masses. I know that is not so easy, but I am not screaming foul at simple believers. Don't worry about me, early this year I received notice to watch my expiry date. I am quite happy to get off, I have done my best and made my contribution to this world. I have been allowed to let medical science lengthen my life. Am I allowed to let them shorten it? Come on, don't start another endless debate, give me your answers, not your arguments. See what I mean!

155. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53488 by Downunder on July 1, 2007 at 4:53 pm

All old hat. The news media making news to sell papers, thriving on any publicity better than none. Why don't we ignore it?

156. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53347 by Downunder on June 30, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Dianelos, post944,#53220 : assumption of a "conscience persisting after death" is to me a contradiction in terms. Conscience needs a brain in a live earthly body. Dead body stays put when conscience=life "floats" away perceptibly but invisibly to re-unite with the surrounding universe. We are at liberty to guess if our conscience will be called-on to be judged. Religions have imposed on us fictitious images of heaven and hell (and something in-between to cater for the little babies). I have no problem with that solong as the Pope does not declare that we go to hell if we do not believe him. If there is a judgment "day", the Pope also will be judged. I am sorry for him because he has chosen to remain on-board and now he must either "row with his Cardinals or jump overboard to swim for his life".
Re: Life, you describe it as a chemical reaction but that now raises my question: what sets-off that reaction; and that is precisely my point at which LIFE enters from the surrounding universe. We cannot see from where, but we can observe the fact of either of only 2 possibilities: life has or has not arrived. We do not have to wait long; the evidence presents itself in an instant after birth. May be we could look at a plant's seed (but don't let us sidetrack too far down that path), in a packet of seed on the storage shelf. That seed is alive (it is a reliable brand). When will it sprout? It will sprout as soon as it hits a fertile environment, moisture smoothes the path for electrostatic particles to "start" a chain reaction of moving precisely suitable chemical matter into building blocks for growing that precise plant. Now, my emphasis is on the word START. That is the instant where I visualize that LIFE enters, to start-off that new individual plant. Similarly with humans (I am a lone voice in the wilderness): a foetus is alive, but not until it hits the right environment at birth, will it receive LIFE from the Universe to become a new human with an individual conscience; call it a soul, mind, personality, or such like. The conscience does not suddenly grow from cells, the cells are already there, it uses the cells as telephone wires to henceforth control the body until it departs at death.
And following along that thought, your God is in the universe and so is mine, but mine is LIFE, not fictitious, it exists, mine in me, yours in you, until at death the life-bit leaves us for dead! Are we thus far apart, or are we really on the same track with different coloured glasses? Yes, I was indoctrinated about God-send life's obstacles, pain and temptation for soul saving, but I have grown out of there, may be at my peril, using my free will. I feel that mankind's "hunt&gather" (includes killing) instinct explains nature's provision of challenges, to learn and develop. The Universe provides challenges and unlimited opportunities, each successive generation learns more and more. This raises the question: Why don't we stop learning and make do with what we got? Your "God" approach will answer: to please God, while my approach is: the universe has made us develop to be driven into finding out why things are so. May be ultimately, we will have the universe licked and close the circle to become all united with the Universe, and partake in the intelligence of your God.
Let us strive to live peacefully, respecting each other's beliefs, live&let live, keep discussing to stop wars.
And I like your post 945, which, as you have stated umpteen times, is your worldview, which I respect. BTW, you are not alone in this forest with your 4th language and you are leading the way! But don't let your God conscience-focus dwell to long on one point, it may leave a scar.
And someone noted that this site has reached an apparent milestone of 20 pages, which is right and proper because it hinges on RD's TGD.

157. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53172 by Downunder on June 30, 2007 at 12:42 am

Dianelos and Dr Benway.
First Dianelos, thank you for posts 883#52988&915#53099 and for the time&effort you spend on discussing so many points of view. I discern a common thread in deist and atheist: all seek a "raison d'etre", a why are we here. I was brought up with that childish God concept but have since concluded that it really just serves as a quick means to an end: explaining the un-explainable. I have changed my God concept because religions have given God human attributes with include failures, suits nicely to blame God, ask God and thank God but it conflicts with a loving God. I believe that whatever God is, it has no human attributes, therefore I use instead the Universe because we can observe at least a part of that, we know it exists, no requirement to believe. Does that give some common ground? Unlike RD, I accept it as useful for the various religions to have developed their various Holy Books from stories, molded, as they are, by "eyewitnesses", author embellishments, translators and interpreters to explain the meaning of life to the masses. So long as the masses are not swept into a fanatic frenzy, it nicely fills an instinctive human need. However, we are not all "like sheep", and even amongst sheep there are leaders. There have always been independent human thinkers like RD to further probe into the "why". We should not condemn others, it aggrevates and serves little purpose other than "making the headlines" and it really draws attention to RD having not yet proven an alternative why & wherefrom.
Half-way your post 915 is the para "Now the traditional......".... why the creation of a universe for such a small planet and recent mankind. Why do you limit the universe's existence as serving only mankind's planet? I do not know, but you may know, if there are other "occupied" planets.
A commonly heard question is: why does nature/God allow such cruelty in the world and created as well such beauty? It is a loaded and not intelligent question because it presumes that there is another way. The religious gob-stopper is: God made it so. My short answer is: I don't know. My long answer is: "the universe exists, we are placed on this planet by our parents who followed a natural urge and started our embryo, which grew into a foetus, which at the stage of birth was given its own LIFE, invisibly yet obviously coming from somewhere out of the space of our surrounding universe. My parents were led to believe and naturally passed it on, that God sits on his throne, created life and runs the universe; but to me God is just a memory-aid to explain whatever we have no plausible explanation for.
You ask: What are our minds? Your answer is as always, very complicated. My answer is: use the word LIFE for mind/soul/person/personhood. Our body is mere "earthly dust", founded on parental "dust", built to a launching stage from "dust" in the mother's womb until ready at birth, when a 3rd invisible party instills LIFE. We can see when life has entered but we can not see from where. It arrives in a blink of the eye, no angel's wings, no big bang, no puff of smoke, yet, the effect is enormous: it adds to this planet a unique new individual (whether it wants to, plays no part). That living person is henceforth enabled to complete growing into an adult by eating more dust, but........then........at some stage that LIFE leaves the body; we can see and test when it goes but we can not see where it goes. The body stops functioning, decay sets in. The body returns to "earthly dust". Evidence that the body serves merely as a disposable (environmentally friendly) carrying bag for life. The body is temporary. The LIFE (mind, soul, etc) has gone instantly out of sight; whereto we can only guess. Various religions dreamed-up various guesses to provide their faithful with an answer. However, my guess is as good as any: I believe that LIFE (mind, soul, etc) is a dimensionless part of the universe, on loan to us to very briefly experience planet earth, and then re-unite with the universe. I find it quite plausible in such scenario, for LIFE to exist also elsewhere in the universe. I endorse space research & travel, and evolution & gene research, and medical science and abortion and birth control and "capital punishment"(a misnomer), etc. but always with the emphatic proviso that LIFE must be respected. The body is mere dust but life is to be respected as an integral, eternal part of our Universe.

Now to Dr Benway's post 918#53113; although I have not always admired some of your language in other posts, this post was "clean" and you can certainly put things much better then I can. Your 2D story is "cool". I wonder what Dianelos will make of your 2D and "l"s.

158. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53001 by Downunder on June 29, 2007 at 1:26 am

Dianelos,post883,#52988.
Thanks for a further insight of your reasoning. I can use your "It is easy enough to brush away anything...." by adding : God's done it. I am pleased to thus observe that you also are blessed with a mere human narrow mind, and mentally depict and use GOD as a person.

159. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52995 by Downunder on June 29, 2007 at 12:35 am

re Nails#25950 proposed t-shirt slogan "...when 2 opposite....".
No, the truth need not lie in between, nor a little one way. Nor is the true religion the average of all. My answer is that atheists, deists and what-ever-ists, are all mere human intellectuals exploring with human curiosity the unfathomable Universe of dimensionless intellect. Human concepts do not apply to the totality of the Universe, but we want to learn and do some intellectual sparring as evident in all these RD sites. Our basic hunt-and-gather stupidity remains self-evident from always fighting, destrutive wars, not very intelligent on the average.

160. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #52984 by Downunder on June 28, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Whoever opened this red hot can of worms, knew he would get a lot of bites!
The laws of physics are formulated by man's intellect to best fit observed events. A God, a Creator are mere human envisaged beings for something that man feels by nature ought to exist to make things work because that is how we do it. Why not accept that the Universe exists as it is, was and will be; with its intelligent dimensions beyond our intelligent horizon, no faith involved, no believing , just accepting the fact. Why we are here, we can not answer because the Universe has given us a loan for only a minute lifespan, loaned us a very small part of its intelligence, a minute part of its TOTALITY where space and time are not applicable. For "Gods" sake let us not start another religion with a "new multi universe God". That is asking for a religious space war (to many Doctor Who watchers). The Big Bang is the product of some intelligent but still mere human individuals; a theory to fit some observations of "nearby" astronomical facts. I believe that there is more universe beyond whatever we can observe. Nature's phenomena are to me evidence of the existence of "power" in the universe. That power is only one of the dimensions of the Univere's dimensionless intellect.
My conclusion: better behave myself or I'll hate myself when I rejoin the ultimate intellect! I am close to my use-by-date.

161. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #52972 by Downunder on June 28, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Shuggy's post 1, I like that story, just a reading from another of the variety of Good Books, Bibles. Some are better than others, depends on one's taste.

162. God Hates the World

Comment #52967 by Downunder on June 28, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Fedler's post214.
Re his para "Iwouldn't....." about RD's reasons for that video is exactly what I felt. RD's intro described enough for me and removed any desire to view it. But then, I find it peculiar when TV reports contain a pre-warning that some parts may offend. If that is known to be so, why not cut those parts? My answer: because the masses want blood!

163. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52963 by Downunder on June 28, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Dianelos,post872,
Your worldview suits me and probably many others, but why base it on a God as if such God actually exists. It seems illogical to me as an outsider in this debating team, having read some but only glanced through many of your lengthy writings, that you are utterly finicky in making your points but when it comes to the God concept, you simply "believe". Your "child of God to be" eventually reunited "with God", strikes me as grasping a straw to keep your faithful head above water. It is interesting to me because it is quite close to my concept of LIFE which is we are all "off-spring" of the Universe. Life enters us from our surrounding universe, is "on loan" to us for our short sojourn on this planet and sooner or later slips away back to wherever it came from which can only be our surrounding infinite Universe. To me the label God is only a word to simplify things to the gullible searching masses. It puzzles me that with your seemingly above average intellect you are strict and logical in the debate except when it comes to a God. Do you really think that God sits on a throne some where and pulls the strings?

164. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52335 by Downunder on June 26, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Dianelos 819#52021; I quote from yours: "All of one's consciousness....etc....are produced by one's brain....destroyed at death. Therefore no personal survival after death". Assuming that you mean: " ....no continuation of the life once departed from this earth....",I wonder how you know that. Have you been there, done that? Much as I am in awe of the time and the volume-of-words you are contributing to this site, may I be so bold as to humbly ask you: is the above quote your belief or is it a quote from somewhere? It seems conjecture to me, because to the best of my knowledge, no human knows what happens after death. May be I have overlooked it while glancing through only some of all these comments, but has LIFE entered these discussions at all? Life, the abstract which enters at birth and departs at death. Life which makes the individual, makes the brain work, the heart tick and the body function. We can sense life, measure its presence; we can prolong and manipulate life. We can end it at will in our self and in others but as far as I am aware, we can not bottle it and transfer it into a dead body to revive that individual or implant to make give a different individuality to a dead body. Please tell me what you think is life. Where does life come from, where does it go to?

165. God Hates the World

Comment #52002 by Downunder on June 25, 2007 at 10:22 pm

RD is clever (and good luck to him) for throwing out the bait and presto, when I hit the site this morning the latest 10 entries screamed fire! Inborn curiosity made me follow the mob, led me to read RD's 1#51864 of 12:22. It said enough, I found no need at all to view the clip. I then read some of the comments, was not impressed until post 17 of 13:46, I noted the times because they show that Wee Fleas' comment was a rather spontaneous quick effort. He opens with RD being absolutely correct about the disgusting video, which confirmed to me that RD had said enough in his post, no need to promote the video! By now the posts have reached #84. I do not mind atheists, nor deists so long as they behave themselves. Aggressive attitudes, fanatic discussions, sarcasm and people who can't think above "navel level" are evident in many of the comments.
To all deists: there has always been so much wrong with the world that at some stage, God allegedly found it wise to send his son but evidently to no avail. The Jews already had their religion and the Christians added another one. The lesson I learned is: don't blame God ,nor thank God. The Universe is not a person and may be RD agrees: all comes from there; the answers lie there. I have been placed on this globe, I did not ask for it. My parents followed a "god-given" urge and at my birth, My God, Mod for short, the Universe instilled life in me leaving me with little choice but to hunt&gather. What the overall purpose is I hope to find out from scientific minds like RD who, not unexpectedly, is a self proclaimed atheist because he can't fathom out that God idea either; he is seeking. At the rate of progress with mans' stupidity, I'll be back in the Universe before I'll be much wiser.
Meantime I decide for myself by keeping an open mind and trying to learn from those who to me appear to make a useful contribution to the society as a whole, at whatever level of their ability. I feel that RD was a bit hasty in placing such video on his web site and that it was not wise to grab it as ready-made evidence of his "children abuse by religions", which is already somewhat exaggerated when taken out of context. The world moves on.

166. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51781 by Downunder on June 24, 2007 at 11:11 pm

reggiedixon, in reply to#51691, I consider atheists as "seekers", not much different to most of us, even those like myself who have gradually stopped going to church. The empty seats at the long established churches are evidence to me that dogmatic stanced religions have passed the use-by-date for the masses. However, old habits die hard, indoctrinations will linger. I would interpret someone's answer of "being spiritual but not religious" as wanting to remain a "good" person but not, or no longer, going to church; probably still believing in some supernatural code of behaviour but no longer interested in sermons from the pulpit. If you feel that there is a significant difference between religious and spiritual in this context, have a look in the Richard Dawkins-Alister McGrath site at the endless discussions by Dianelos.You could ask him about the difference, and see if it takes you any closer to what you are looking for. I do not like splitting hairs. I foster discussion with the objective of action. Discussion for its own sake may serve as a mental exercise if one has nothing more productive to do.

167. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51681 by Downunder on June 24, 2007 at 4:21 am

Re post49,#51657reggiedixon: not so baffling, you understood nicely that religion is not important to me because history has it, as Dawkins noted, that religion has caused more trouble than it solves. I "believe", amongst other things, that respect for each other, whatever colour or creed will make a better world. The forces of nature, of the Universe are sufficient to remind us of our mortality, we do not need wars, murderers, etc. to remind us. Our mortality requires reflection on the reasons for our existence. What is life, why are we here? Scientific research has provided many answers but countless more questions remain while researchers plod on. Meantime what path must we decide to take? My answer: I open my eyes, ears and mind and decide for myself. It is my life, my responsibility.

168. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51650 by Downunder on June 24, 2007 at 12:20 am

I posted this earlier as comment#51635 because I could not find this "God Delusion" site where it belongs. My apologies.
re: The God Delusion
It seems to me that anyone who uses the lack of "a logical argument for the existence of God" as a logical reason to be an atheist, is having-us-on, or is rather narrow-minded or childish. A certain mental agility is required to realise that religions of whatever creed are only human efforts, not a God's, to guide the masses through their individual lives. The life span of a human is utterly insignificant compared to that of our planet and the universe. I congratulate Dawkins for using his "God" given talents to stir, those who listen, into vigorous discussion about religions. Congratulations for being able to make a living from it and for doing it nicely. Discussions are more civilised then generation after generation of stupid wars.
WAKE-UP all of you, you'll be dead before you know it. The Universe lives on, for ever. Eternity is beyond our human dimensions, so is the comprehension of the universe, let alone the concept of a God. What are we arguing about? Are we allowed to have different concepts? Must we all back the same team because only one team will be the winner?
To all ATHEISTS: forget about religion, forget about God, it are mere pebbles along the track, concentrate on what is LIFE. To ALL: find out where life comes from and where life goes back to. Why are we here? I have had 80 years sofar, and have found my answers in "My God", I'll name him "Mod" for short, short also for modified. Life is on loan from Mod and goes back to Mod. Mod is omniscience, omnipresent, omni-dimensional, omni-everything, intrinsically beyond our intelligence. Study the UNIVERSE, infinity, evolution and science. Discover and do not waste your intelligence & energy on arguments about religious details. We should learn from history that religious fanatics cause wars. If killing of innocents is condoned in wars, let us end swiftly and humanely those fanatics who start wars. Teach all to live and let live with mutual respect.
Dawkins' world-wide attention may be "God sent"! Now that is a new tack to help the dogmatic believers.

169. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51635 by Downunder on June 23, 2007 at 10:40 pm

re: The God Delusion

It seems to me that anyone who uses the lack of "a logical argument for the existence of God" as a logical reason to be an atheist, is having-us-on, or is rather narrow-minded or childish. A certain mental development is required to realise that religions of whatever creed are only human efforts, not a God's, to guide the masses through their individual lives. The life span of a human is utterly insignificant compared to that of our planet and the universe. I congratulate Dawkins for using his "God" given talents to stir, those who listen, into vigorous discussion about religions; congratulations for being able to make a living from it and for doing it nicely. Discussions are more civilised then generation after generation of stupid wars.
WAKE-UP all of you, you'll be dead before you know it. The Universe lives on, for ever. Eternity is beyond our human dimensions, so is the comprehension of the universe, let alone the concept of a God. What are we arguing about? Are we allowed to have different concepts? Must we all back the same team because only one team will be the winner?
To all ATHEISTS: forget about religion, forget about God, it are mere pebbles along the track, concentrate on what is LIFE. To ALL: find out where life comes from and where life goes back to. Why are we here? I have had 80 years sofar, and have found my answers in "My God", I'll name him "Mod" for short, short also for modified. Life is on loan from Mod and goes back to Mod. Mod is omniscience, omnipresent, omni-dimensional, omni-everything, intrinsically beyond our intelligence. Study the UNIVERSE, infinity, evolution and science. Discover and do not waste your intelligence & energy on arguments about religious details. We should learn from history that religious fanatics cause wars. If killing of innocents is condoned in wars, let us end swiftly and humanely those fanatics who start wars. Teach all to live and let live with mutual respect.
Dawkins' world-wide attention may be "God sent"! Now that is a new tack to help the dogmatic believers.
By the way, of the many comments I have glanced through on this web site, IQHQ's seem the best, may be because we have J.S.Bach in common.

170. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50075 by Downunder on June 14, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Re: the Dawkins-McGrath interview.
Prof. Dawkins 1st came to my notice in his 2-part presentation on the local TV on 27 May 2007. While looking on the internet for his email address I saw the RD-McG interview and have since read several of the daily comments. I am somewhat reluctant to submit my comments but having spent 80 years in this world sofar and brought up as a staunch Catholic (Jesuit high school, church every Sunday, 25 yrs in Holland, 18 in NZ, in Australia since 1970, 4 children & 7 adult grandchildren) I am stirred to add my comments.
During the church sermons over more recent years I felt an increasing urge to jump up and shout "you don't really believe that". So I stopped going to church. My earliest doubts about the bible arose from contemplating as a 10 year old, an illustration in my missal of an old man with enormous beard holding a dagger on his son's chest waiting to obey God's demand to kill the son. I felt from then on, to not take the bible's stories too literally. Stories survive by embellishments, even eyewitness reports of an event can vary widely, revisions and translations make further changes. Having had to learn 4 languages to pass the highschool exams, I know that a translation can miss the fine nuances of the original text. Thus I have no respect for bible quotations. However, the Jesuits did instill me a respect for other religions but it conflicts somewhat with zealous, even fanatic missionary works.
Having glanced through several pages of the comments on RD's website I noticed that much time, intelligence and humor is spent on details such as a definition of atheist and the concept of consciousness. If those minds battle with such concepts what hope have they got to agree on a God concept? I missed positive suggestions for the improvement of our world other then that RD advocates reducing religious influences on children. I will be explaining my concept of god and use the upper case God for the religious concept. The reasons should become clear as we go. The word god is nice and short as a label for an abstract concept of a supernatural power, useful to teach morals to the masses and it is noteworthy that God has not interfered with scientists plugging away diligently at discovering how things work. The useful results of discoveries filter down to the masses, gradually increase general knowledge and keep the ball rolling so that individuals are increasingly questioning things for themselves. It is evident from rows of empty seats in long established beautiful churches that dogmatic religious teachings have lost the plot. It is not lack of interest in morals evident from thriving attendances at modern, arm-waving "hallelujah" churches services. The masses instinctively need and seek religious guidance. In democratic environments votes count regardless of intelligence. This has the bad side effect that indoctrination of the masses may lead whole nations astray. Hitler knew it and exploited it in the 30's, the rest is history. Bush has been using it. The Greens now thrive on it, using global warming to enthuse young and old into energy efficiency and pollution reduction to reduce global warming.
Rome has been of little help in our troubled world. The clique of conservative Cardinals have apparently learned little since one scientific mind voiced his opinion and proved, in spite of religious condemnations, that our world is not really flat! It took Rome a long time to accept that religion survives on a globe. When I look at night at the sky and roughly count the stars contained by the tube of my curled hand and then look through a telescope at the same piece of sky, it never fails to make me ponder about our un-importance in the universe; distances beyond our comprehension; eternity? It gives me an inkling of that conventional abstract concept: god, not as a being, a maker or ruler, which are only human images, but as the seemingly empty "space" in the universe; all space not just between objects but also inside all objects, between the innermost, smallest of particles. I feel that LIFE comes from space (not Doctor Who's!). Life, another abstract, which invisibly yet noticeably, may enter at birth to start a new independent individual on its earthly sojourn, which ends at death when logically to me, life again invisibly rejoins the totality of the universe. On death the individual's life disappears leaving behind a then futile body constructed from mere earthly particles, left to disintegrate for "recycling"; its particles belong to the earth, only one of the countless objects in the universe. We can sense life, we cannot hold it; we can manipulate it, prolong it and we can stop it, kill, but we cannot create it. When life enters at birth, the body only serves as a temporary home and the "presence" of the individual returns to wherever it came from. This line of abstract reasoning has provided me with satisfactory answers to questions about religions, atheists, witchdoctor hocus pocus, holy scriptures, wars, greed, poverty, joy, fear, abortions, capital punishment, homosexuals, evolution, etc., and also about natural disasters, diseases and anything which man is inclined to blame on some supernatural power.
WHAT IS LIFE and WHY ARE WE HERE? Starting with the latter and speaking for myself as a normal human being; my existence is due to 3 contributors, which are my 2 parents, and god. DO NOTE the lowercase god, who instilled life at my birth. At conception the assembly of my body started, growing from embryo to foetus as a live part of my mother drawing the chemical elements from her and returning the waste to her. Neither she, nor I had any say in the growing process; her heart beats all the time, my heart starts beating in due course long before birth. Eventually, when the foetus has sufficiently developed birth will occur. That is THE big moment when a new individual may or may not receive LIFE to become a new hunter and gatherer on this planet, start his/her own life. For simplicity's sake religions say that God instilled life, but I feel that life comes from nature, space, the "to me invisible, intangible" visibly empty part of our surrounding universe where time and space ultimately become dimensionless. My concept of the universe involves no beginning, no end. The universe exists, has always existed. Eternity is forever, dimensions are not applicable. Our limited human perspective makes it inherently impossible to grasp the extra dimensions to see the total picture. Our intellect cannot comprehend the totality. We grew up with religious concepts, conveying from generation to generation that our world was created, had a beginning and is operated by a supernatural being. It is only human to imagine such a supernatural being has some human traits. We have been instilled with inquisitiveness, intellect and research for questioning and seeking answers to "Why is it so?" It is thus not evil to question the holy books or religious teachings. Discussions about the "supernatural" although essentially beyond our intelligence are like learning to walk by falling over. I accept that religions want to help their faithful by using human concepts of the supernatural. Let it be, so long as their faithful do not interfere with others. Consider this fact: our instinct has instilled a fear, a holy respect for the forces of nature. When driven into a corner, like dying soldiers on the battleground, when all else fails we instinctively cry out for help to the almighty. Some of us have come to realise that space, nature, the universe, God if you like, does not react. The universe is beyond human attributes. I believe that the universe was, is and always will "be", intrinsically no plan, no ruler, no destiny, and no end.
WHAT IS THE REASON FOR OUR EXISTENCE? The childish, short answer is: god only knows! The RD-McG interview re-affirmed my thoughts that we are here to make the "best" of our earthly sojourn. We know that we have the capacity to learn things, be it by trial&error, by luck or by logical reasoning. We also have a free will to do what we like with our abilities. History has shown that we like to fight, which is probably our basic instinct for hunting and gathering, but we should have discovered by now that fighting each other, wars, jails and greed are stupid and backfire sooner or later. We have no control over natural disasters but we are able to make our world a much nicer place to live in. This leads to my constructive suggestion that a better world for all would eventuate by promulgating the principle: LIVE and LET LIVE (greed will disappear), create mutual respect (RD&McG showed it to some extent) for the ideas, beliefs, customs, possessions, habits, etc. of others. Discussion and research will provide sufficient facilities for the enjoyment of our earthly sojourn. However, because our world is made up of humans with greatly diverging habits and inclinations, I see a need for a global code, a behaviour code. From my observations I must emphasize that such a code must be based on "common" sense and specifically not based on crafty "interpretations" of a law. Such code would need to be applied by a global (UN) police force. The hitherto condoned killing of innocents, the wanton destruction of infrastructure, fights between neighbours, greed and poverty would be prevented by prompt but humane elimination of any individuals who by their own free will hinder a peaceful existence and who show thereby that they do not want to belong in a peaceful world. I can hear already the emotional brigade screaming that some individuals may be mistakenly eliminated. That could be so but I reason that it is better for some individuals of questionable behaviour to die humanely in times of peace than for great numbers of innocents to suffer or die inhumanely on both sides in wars.
. Thanks RD and his staff for posting my comment (if it got that far).

171. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48954 by Downunder on June 9, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Just joined, this is my 2nd attempt to enter my comment. The 1st one must have got lost in cyberspace. Having glanced through the Comments lists over recent days :
1. re a definition of atheist. If so many of this website's "community" of intellectuals can not even define the abstract of a mere human "atheist", what hope is there for them to ever accept a concept of god=life=universe=eternity?
2. re loving and communities. I suggest: live and let live with mutual respect but blackball fanatics, put them on a smallish island to limit their breeding space. Don't repeat the Brits mistake of creating an Israel.