I don't really post here anymore but I figured the content could be something for yall to chew on. To start off with I am a Unitarian Universalist. I think I am the only UU on here .
http://www.uua.org/
http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html
To be brief in case you don't want to surf the site UU's don't have a doctrine of belief so on any particular sunday I may be sitting next to a UU christian, UU agnostic (lots of UU agnogs) UU hindu UU bali ect ect.
UU is a vessel for each person to find their own spirtuality and as such a shift in beliefs is not seen as a loss in faith like other religions. UU's as a group spend a lot of time study religion and secular philophy and than as a group compare notes. While there are not many UU's on here there are many on the net cause it is a vessel for gaining knowledge on their existance within the universe.
I spent some time discussion religion with others of various faiths while on the net and slowly over the course of the year I have made a strong shift. Towards atheism. Today consider myself to be an atheist / UU.
I wrote a letter of resignation earlier yesterday and dated it today. This is the letter in its entirety minus names which I have removed. The letter was written to a specific audiance that is not here so it may not have continuity in the beginning or end. It has major areas of sub debate that haven't really popped up here and I thought yall could sub-divide parts you liked and turn them into debates.
I wish you all well in your individual spirtual journeies..here is the letter:
I came here a while ago and have since learned quite a bit. Before I arrived on here and I debated the issue of God for about a year while in college in the 90's and than for about a year right before coming to this forum. When I got here I had a list of why I believed there to be a higher power that created the universe and I break it down as follows:
1) Universal morality. I believed that that through a cosmic consciousness that man was inner-connected through God and that the result was a collective consciousness that was manifested by God.
I believed that two common examples of this were
1) guilt as an intrensic feeling
2) a core set of beliefs that were universal like killing stealing and incest as wrong and/or taboo
Since being here and from outside study, I have found that:
1)guilt is a comtemplation on many occassion (thus not 100 % inntate)
2) that my previous notion of core beliefs were relative by a wide variety of opinions
Universal morality was scratched from my list.
My second belief was that was that man was spirtual by nature and as such pointed to evidence of the existance of God. I believed that man's spirtuality was an indication of a divine presence. Since being here I have discovered that it is presumptuous to think that God exists but man is unable to discover God via the 5 senses which I will touch on later in this essay. I furthered realized that it is presumptuous to think that just because man searches for it that it exists. I scratched it off my list.
I furthered believed that since man had an inclination towards the divine that that was a strong indicator of the existance of such. I learned of Vmat2 since and when I inquired about it on here [name deleted] stated that genes have a function not a purpose. I realized the truth in that statement and that the bigger question could really be what is the purpose of God's and man's relationship? The question of what was the purpose is addressed later in the essay.
Lastly I believed in a soul. I have not debated the existance of a soul on here or elsewhere, that I am aware of but I have read 100's of pages on it on the internet and learned the following.
1) no evidence of a soul exists
2) It is not reasonable to think that every part of a human being has been found and identified except the soul.
3) the soul by the definintion of it falls outside the realm of all other cateogized parts of what makes man or beast
4) Many things I use to associate with the soul are in fact explainable with bio chemistry genetics and dna.
I have since let go of my belief in a soul. Now my list was empty.
Part II
I have come to understand that the sum of my reality is that which I experience and that which is priori knowledge. Priori knowledge is that which is gained through deduction. In summary what I am saying is that
experience + deductions=reality
In regards to experience I understand it to be achieved through the 5 senses
1) sight
2) sound
3) taste
4) touch
5) smell
I do not regard intuition as a 6th sense but a combination of skillful useage of the other 5 senses.
Within the bounds of that definition of experience I have not experienced God. Specfically I have not,
1) seen him
2) heard him
3) tasted him
4) touched him
5) smell him
The fact that I have not experience him alone persuades me that he is not a personal God. As a result and in addition I have not been able to locate
God's home
God's location at any time
what even to look for in defining him.
This has resulted in my inablity to define God. My conclusion. God is not personal or experienceable and I am not able to define him.
The second part of my reality is priori knowledge.
I have always been a believer (until now) of St Thomas Aquina's 1st mover principle. It is called the first mover arguement. The eventual problem I discovered with this arguement is:
1) If God made the universe than who made God ( Bernard Russell, "Why I am not a Christian)
2) If God is not personal why would he be motivated to make the universe. He didn't need the universe to exist in if he was existant before it.
I also rested much strength on the anthropic prinple which states loosely that any valid theory of the universe must be consistant with our existance as carbon based beings. It further stipulates that any small changes in our enviorment would result in non-life on earth including but not limited to
1 ) tilt of the earth
2) spin of the earth
3) distance from the sun
4) chemical make-up of the earth.
I went to postitive atheism for a counter point
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anthropic.htm
and found the following coutner points from Victor Gijsbers.
1) to qoute him "the concept of fine tuning begs the question" in that "fine-tuning" pre-supposes that the physical constraints can be fined tuned.
2) Is based on misconception of probablity. While the probablity of life on earth is small the probablity of life in a univese with billion of planets is anything but small.
3) carbonization. VJ states that TAP assumes that only a small number of universes would bring about life.
there is a lot more if you go to the link.
Jef Raskin futher punches a hole in TAP by stating that
1) a change in the physics would change the result
2) that the cause and effect relationship of TAP was backwards in its presentation.
He didn't state it but I am thinking it would follow that if TAP's cause and effect was correct (as it is stated by proponets of the theory) than evolution as a theory would still be invalid as no natural selection would be neccessary if the course was preplanned.
Jef Raskin took the liberty of creating an experienment to support his ideas and explains them better than I probably have here.
http://humane.sourceforge.net/publi..._principle.html
In the summation of the arguements I have learned that TAP has failed to show that life on earth is anything other than probability or for our sake dumb luck.
Because:
1) All that I attributed to the existance of God had been debunked here
2) I am unable as show how to achieve a personal relationship with God
3) I am unable to show or find a purpose of man's relationship with God
I am renouncing my belief in God. On my first few days where I remember asking (name deleted) on the boards why he was an atheist and he stated paraphrased " that athesim comes from within and religion from the outside". I didnt' understand what he was talking about than but it makes prefect sense today. I came here looking for God and instead discovered alot of myself, my existance, my spirituality and a larger piece of humanity and many great friends.
I am hereby submitting my formal resignation to my belief in God this day of January 10, 2005.
Sincerely,
Robtex
http://www.uua.org/
http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html
To be brief in case you don't want to surf the site UU's don't have a doctrine of belief so on any particular sunday I may be sitting next to a UU christian, UU agnostic (lots of UU agnogs) UU hindu UU bali ect ect.
UU is a vessel for each person to find their own spirtuality and as such a shift in beliefs is not seen as a loss in faith like other religions. UU's as a group spend a lot of time study religion and secular philophy and than as a group compare notes. While there are not many UU's on here there are many on the net cause it is a vessel for gaining knowledge on their existance within the universe.
I spent some time discussion religion with others of various faiths while on the net and slowly over the course of the year I have made a strong shift. Towards atheism. Today consider myself to be an atheist / UU.
I wrote a letter of resignation earlier yesterday and dated it today. This is the letter in its entirety minus names which I have removed. The letter was written to a specific audiance that is not here so it may not have continuity in the beginning or end. It has major areas of sub debate that haven't really popped up here and I thought yall could sub-divide parts you liked and turn them into debates.
I wish you all well in your individual spirtual journeies..here is the letter:
I came here a while ago and have since learned quite a bit. Before I arrived on here and I debated the issue of God for about a year while in college in the 90's and than for about a year right before coming to this forum. When I got here I had a list of why I believed there to be a higher power that created the universe and I break it down as follows:
1) Universal morality. I believed that that through a cosmic consciousness that man was inner-connected through God and that the result was a collective consciousness that was manifested by God.
I believed that two common examples of this were
1) guilt as an intrensic feeling
2) a core set of beliefs that were universal like killing stealing and incest as wrong and/or taboo
Since being here and from outside study, I have found that:
1)guilt is a comtemplation on many occassion (thus not 100 % inntate)
2) that my previous notion of core beliefs were relative by a wide variety of opinions
Universal morality was scratched from my list.
My second belief was that was that man was spirtual by nature and as such pointed to evidence of the existance of God. I believed that man's spirtuality was an indication of a divine presence. Since being here I have discovered that it is presumptuous to think that God exists but man is unable to discover God via the 5 senses which I will touch on later in this essay. I furthered realized that it is presumptuous to think that just because man searches for it that it exists. I scratched it off my list.
I furthered believed that since man had an inclination towards the divine that that was a strong indicator of the existance of such. I learned of Vmat2 since and when I inquired about it on here [name deleted] stated that genes have a function not a purpose. I realized the truth in that statement and that the bigger question could really be what is the purpose of God's and man's relationship? The question of what was the purpose is addressed later in the essay.
Lastly I believed in a soul. I have not debated the existance of a soul on here or elsewhere, that I am aware of but I have read 100's of pages on it on the internet and learned the following.
1) no evidence of a soul exists
2) It is not reasonable to think that every part of a human being has been found and identified except the soul.
3) the soul by the definintion of it falls outside the realm of all other cateogized parts of what makes man or beast
4) Many things I use to associate with the soul are in fact explainable with bio chemistry genetics and dna.
I have since let go of my belief in a soul. Now my list was empty.
Part II
I have come to understand that the sum of my reality is that which I experience and that which is priori knowledge. Priori knowledge is that which is gained through deduction. In summary what I am saying is that
experience + deductions=reality
In regards to experience I understand it to be achieved through the 5 senses
1) sight
2) sound
3) taste
4) touch
5) smell
I do not regard intuition as a 6th sense but a combination of skillful useage of the other 5 senses.
Within the bounds of that definition of experience I have not experienced God. Specfically I have not,
1) seen him
2) heard him
3) tasted him
4) touched him
5) smell him
The fact that I have not experience him alone persuades me that he is not a personal God. As a result and in addition I have not been able to locate
God's home
God's location at any time
what even to look for in defining him.
This has resulted in my inablity to define God. My conclusion. God is not personal or experienceable and I am not able to define him.
The second part of my reality is priori knowledge.
I have always been a believer (until now) of St Thomas Aquina's 1st mover principle. It is called the first mover arguement. The eventual problem I discovered with this arguement is:
1) If God made the universe than who made God ( Bernard Russell, "Why I am not a Christian)
2) If God is not personal why would he be motivated to make the universe. He didn't need the universe to exist in if he was existant before it.
I also rested much strength on the anthropic prinple which states loosely that any valid theory of the universe must be consistant with our existance as carbon based beings. It further stipulates that any small changes in our enviorment would result in non-life on earth including but not limited to
1 ) tilt of the earth
2) spin of the earth
3) distance from the sun
4) chemical make-up of the earth.
I went to postitive atheism for a counter point
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anthropic.htm
and found the following coutner points from Victor Gijsbers.
1) to qoute him "the concept of fine tuning begs the question" in that "fine-tuning" pre-supposes that the physical constraints can be fined tuned.
2) Is based on misconception of probablity. While the probablity of life on earth is small the probablity of life in a univese with billion of planets is anything but small.
3) carbonization. VJ states that TAP assumes that only a small number of universes would bring about life.
there is a lot more if you go to the link.
Jef Raskin futher punches a hole in TAP by stating that
1) a change in the physics would change the result
2) that the cause and effect relationship of TAP was backwards in its presentation.
He didn't state it but I am thinking it would follow that if TAP's cause and effect was correct (as it is stated by proponets of the theory) than evolution as a theory would still be invalid as no natural selection would be neccessary if the course was preplanned.
Jef Raskin took the liberty of creating an experienment to support his ideas and explains them better than I probably have here.
http://humane.sourceforge.net/publi..._principle.html
In the summation of the arguements I have learned that TAP has failed to show that life on earth is anything other than probability or for our sake dumb luck.
Because:
1) All that I attributed to the existance of God had been debunked here
2) I am unable as show how to achieve a personal relationship with God
3) I am unable to show or find a purpose of man's relationship with God
I am renouncing my belief in God. On my first few days where I remember asking (name deleted) on the boards why he was an atheist and he stated paraphrased " that athesim comes from within and religion from the outside". I didnt' understand what he was talking about than but it makes prefect sense today. I came here looking for God and instead discovered alot of myself, my existance, my spirituality and a larger piece of humanity and many great friends.
I am hereby submitting my formal resignation to my belief in God this day of January 10, 2005.
Sincerely,
Robtex
Last edited: