Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Prayer. Well, that tells me something right there. When you say God, you mean the God of Scripture. I have taken pains to pierce the vale of illusion. You might have suggested meditation. You might have suggested Reiki. No. You want me to engage in prayer. You are suggesting that I use a form of hypnotic induction to re-enter an illusory state. I am not inclined to do so. I am also not inclined to write Santa a letter, care of the North Pole. Because I'm an adult. Because, I would feel like a drooling moron. You asked.

I was late in seeing this. I will respond now. There is theory. There is practice. In theory, I don't know that God exists. In theory, I also don't know that God does not exist. "I don't know" is the default position. In practice, I need a reason to act as though something exists. In practice, my default position is that God does not exist. Since we don't have even a tentative working definition for God, it doesn't even matter. Seriously, what is a higher power? This is the kind of crap, all purpose definition, that we come up with -- as used by AA -- when we try to be all inclusive and PC. It means nothing.

You have a great truth here. Life is short. There is a wonderful bit of wisdom that I would like to repeat here. "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself." As we say in the Apathetic Agnostic Church: "We don't know and we don't care."

People have been looking for God for a long time. Also claiming to have found Him/Her/It. What they find seems to depend on what they are looking for. I think the obvious place to start is the God of Scripture. People have been spending countless lives searching the various Abrahamic Scriptures. In loose terms, the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Arabic Scriptures. Well, look at the world. Look at the Middle East. It doesn't work for me, but alright. A slightly more abstract Monotheism, derived from Scripture. God has three basic properties or attributes. God is all Good., all knowing and all powerful. From this, we can infer other attributes. For instance, God is sentient and self aware. It doesn't work for me, but alright. Pantheism. In particular, the Pantheism of Spinoza. Spinoza spoke of "Nature's God." Alright. I don't see the need for a personification of Nature, but alright. Deism. In particular, the Deism of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. God -- The First Cause -- started everything and then got bored and wandered off. No revelations. No Scripture. No responding to prayer. No intervention. I don't see the need, but alright. Einstein's God. The God of Math. The creative force that set the Cosmological Constants into motion. Or is the Cosmological Constants. It doesn't work for me, but alright. Various sub-abstractions: I Am that I Am. God is One. Ocean of Life. They obviously mean a great deal to people. Well, alright. I'm not at all sure any of it matters, but alright. The New Age abstractions:. God is Love. Thou art God. Well, alright. And of course, the ultra specific. God is Christ on the Cross. All of which only scratches the surface in a simplistic way. What happens? True Believers and Anti-Theists rage at each other. So much heat and so little light. That's enough for now. I'll climb down from my soap box. One last thought. Here I am. The Agnostic Atheist. Tell me to look for God. Which one?

Chemistry is a practical science. It works because the ideas behind it have been verified. Verification has been rigorous and replicated by independent observation and experimentation. Outcomes are predictable, because we know how the chemical process work. Are you suggesting that there is a science of God? Can you even define God in a way that is subject to independent verification? Prayer is a means for conditioning the mind for acceptance. Acceptance is not proof for anything except conditioning. Are people who believe in God, better people because of their belief? Are they kinder? More inclined to charity? Less inclined to crime or cruelty? Slower to anger? More forgiving? Not to my observation. It helps nothing that there are so many different ways to understand God. There is -- to name a few -- Monotheism, Pantheism, Deism, and a few others that don't come to mind at the moment. Monotheism comes in flavors. Unity and Trinity. Polytheism is totally different. Vedic religion is different again. Philosophic proofs tend to focus on the First Cause. So, which type of God do you wish to establish? My guess is that objectivity will continue to elude. This leaves me with not knowing, which is Agnosticism -- and not believing, which is Atheism.

It is the weakness of faith based religion. They can not endure ambiguity. They must have answers. Even false answers. Other -wise, they panic.

Yes. It turns out that much of what they thought was mistaken. Alright. Not the point. Long before we could photograph molecules, we had chemistry and math. We also had observations of water vapor and other gasses. There was precipitation. There was evidence. There were indicators. I don't need absolute proof that God exists. Something more than authoritarian demands that I believe would be helpful. I hope this does not come across as mean spirited or abusive. That is not my intent. I'm trying to make a point. Until somebody shows me something -- God's existence shares the same probability as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are a few standard arguments that I have grown seriously tired of hearing: Prayer. Pray to God. See what happens. No. I'm too old to be talking to my invisible friend. When I was a young child, it was cute. Now, not so much. I'm also too old to ask Santa for something. No matter how desperate for something I might get; it would never occur to me to write Santa a letter, and ask him to bring it to me. You know. Just in case. The First Cause. Why is there something rather than nothing? I'm not going to argue Cosmology. The simple truth is -- I don't know. Even if there was an intelligent First Cause that created the Cosmological Constants and everything else -- then what? At most we have the Pantheism of Spinoza or the Deism of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. It is a huge leap to go from First Cause to the God of Scripture. I have nothing to sell. I am not trying to convince anybody else of anything. I am only trying to explain why I don't believe. I'm not angry at God. I'm not mad at the churches. I'm not in love with sin. I'm not dancing to the Devil's music. Etc. Etc. I see no reason to believe. Neither are the pious believers under any obligation to show me anything. Really. I don't expect it. If they want me to believe, I need a reason. There is one more question that I have grown weary of. "What would it take for you to believe?" Truly, I have no idea. I expect that if God were real -- then God would know what it would take to convince me. This has not happened. Either there is no God; or God doesn't care what I believe. Or God means something completely different, and there is no point in using the God word. A note to the Polytheists on this board. No disrespect was intended. I was afraid if I tried to include Polytheism in this discussion, I would come off like a lawyer.

Since I sincerely do not want to step on anybody's feelings, without a reason; I will not use God as my example. Instead, let us speak of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. For the sake of argument, let us suggest that you tell me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. I take a few moments to wonder if you have lost your mind. You then tell me that I have to accept the reality of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on faith alone. At this point, I tell you, as a good non-theist -- that I will consider the reality that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, just as soon as I have proof. Or at least something resembling evidence. I am not obligated to accept every silly assertion without a reason. Not the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Not the Invisible Pink Unicorn (who is both invisible and pink). Not the Purple Oyster of Doom. Not even God. Unless somebody shows me something -- the default position is that it doesn't exist. I can not possibly be expected to disprove every silly flight of imagination. For instance, The Hollow Earth. Or the flat Earth. For some things, the default position could be -- as you suggested -- "Someone should probably look into that." An example here would be the efficacy of Homeopathic remedies. I am dubious, but willing to be persuaded.

That is the problem with trying to force everybody into a single issue, two dimensional chart. My own position floats. Atheism -- If we specify that the God under discussion is the God of the Bible or Koran: I need a reason to believe that something exists. To my knowledge, there is no good reason to believe that this particular God exists. Agnosticism: Maybe this God exists. Maybe this God does not exist. I don't "know." In the absences of proof or reason, the default position is no. Pending further evidence. Apatheism: I'm not at all sure it actually matters whether or not God exists. There is a simple thought experiment. Pretend that God exists. What changes? Nothing. Now, pretend that God does not exist. What changes? Nothing. Pantheism: The God of Spinoza and Einstein. Well, maybe. I'm not at all sure this is a legitimate use of the God word -- but maybe. I also have affiliations. I was ordained by the Apathetic Agnostic Church (UCTAA). The motto is - "We don't know and we don't care.". I was also ordained by the First Church of Atheism. Yes. I know. Not a religion. I thought it was funny. The humor is wearing thin.

That was also my answer. Join the conversations. Participate. That is how you can help.

Welcome to the forum. Jump in anywhere you like. Feel welcome. Jonathan

Just so. As Groucho Marx said -- "I wouldn't join a country club that would have me as a member.". I see that there are still standards.

Walking is good.

I don't do mantras. Too religious for my taste. I do breath work. It's good stress relief. Much better and safer than drugs. I'm not a Buddhist. I have been influenced by some Buddhist ideas. In particular, letting go. It's useful. For my taste, Buddhism also has weaknesses. A key point of Buddhism is that it's a path of enlightenment for everyone. It's been 3,000 years. Where are all the Buddhas? By this time, they should be everywhere. I also question the value of Buddhist influence on society. Japan has certainly been under Buddhist influence. Is Japan a model of superior spiritual development? Buddha said to be objective.

Clearly, we have different inclinations. I like to use meditation to find that quiet place within. I'm guessing that this does not appeal to you.

Funny. No. The Man of LeMancha does not work for me. I choose a different role model I choose the Lotus. The lotus is a beautiful flower that floats on swamp water. The swamp water rises, the lotus rises with it. The swamp water goes down, the lotus floats down with it. A presidential candidate promises to drain the swamp, the lotus knows that he's a lying bag of sh*t. The tide rolls in. The tide rolls out. "The Dude abides."

All true. At the same time, I need to protect my own resources or there is one more person in dire straights. Me. It does no good to love my neighbor as myself; if I don't love myself. There is one lesson I have learned the hard way. When ever anybody addresses me as Reverend, I am going to be asked for money. Just because I was ordained does not make me stupid.

No. I'm not tickled. I'm pragmatic. The system is not of my making. I cope and I make do as well as I can. If I thought it would help, I would consider screaming hysterics. It wouldn't help.

The big picture is out of my control. I don't focus on it because there is nothing I can do about it. So far, so good. If I go over the cliff, I'll worry about it then.

In my case, it's in the nature of a savings account. Not Robbin Hood. I paid in plenty. Now, I'm making withdrawals.

I've been there often enough. You want to do the right thing. You hate to feel used by a taker. Yes. I've been there.

In loose terms, I have done enough good with my life that when good things come to me, it is a balancing of the scales. I have helped my friends. I still help my friends. It works out. Government aid does not diminish me. I have paid more than my share of taxes over the years. It's in the nature of a refund. I don't do church food pantries. That would have me feeling diminished. Not blessed. I'm not in enough distress that I'm ready to pretend piety.

I agree fully. At the same time, government aid (food stamps) -- lets me do my own cooking. The low cost lunches at my senior centers also help. It all has a place.

I take my help where I can get it. I have been helped by individuals, by organizations, and yes, even the government.

An addendum: I waited too long with my edit from the previous piece. The counter argument is that the Risen Christ healed the whole world, for all time. Most of us are not able to work on that level.