Do Atheists have a choice in not believing in God?

[harvey1]

It seems that many atheists reason along these lines:

1) My mind is entirely a physical entity
2) This entity reduces down to quarks and leptons
3) Quarks and leptons do not allow free will
4) Hence, I have no free will
5) I am an atheist
6) Hence, I have no free will to be other than an atheist
7) Thus, I must interpret the evidence of the world as an atheist
8) Therefore, I can never be anything but an atheist unless the quarks and leptons configure differently in my brain in which I have no control over

This seems like fallacious reasoning to me. So, I'd like to ask, do atheists have free will to be theists, or are they chained to whatever the quarks and leptons do since they are not accessible objects?

[Rob]

In the meantime, please continue to assault each other with words. Eventually they may well bring such frustration, that all will tire of looking externally, and begin the REAL journey.... within!

You're basically saying that philosophical discussion only brings about frustration and that we should just all give into emotion to find our journey. Obviously I think that deep reasoning must be applied along with subjective experiences. There are many tremendous pitfalls associated with ignoring reasoning (I'm reminded of Germany in the early 1930's for example). I don't think it's a good idea. Sorry.

Why do you characterize philosophical discourse and debate as an "assault" Dave? It appears Dave that you disdain intelligent intellectual discourse. It is certainly an odd characterization of intelligent debate on a site dedicated to debate, is it not?

I must agree with Harvey that "deep reasoning must be applied along with subjective experience," and that there are "many tremendous pitfalls associated with ignoring reasoning." Jim Jones, Hale-Bopp, and David Koresh to name just a few.

The external trappings of whatever religion really are not what is critical.

Are the "external trappings of whatever religion" really not important? What if the forced marriage of 12 or 13 year old girls is part of those external trappings Dave? What if those "external trappings" involves female circumcision of little girls? Is this all really just relative and of no importance?

Of course, I am sure that you would not argue that the abuse of children is an acceptable "external trapping," but then, would not this evaluation in itself require some critical thinking? So why then, do you dismiss Harvey's point?

It seems you are missing or avoiding Harvey's point.

I can only assume you are using "heart" as a metaphor for "feelings," but would ask that you clarify what you mean by this apparent false dichotomy of heart vs. intellect?

Is it not through our higher "thinking" Dave that we come to percieve truth in all its forms?

Or are you just trying to say that someone can be loving without being intelligent, and therefore intelligence is not a measure of one's closeness to God? In other words, are you trying to agrue that one's spiritual experience can be valid despite erroneous beliefs associated with such an experience?

[Bro Dave]

In the meantime, please continue to assault each other with words. Eventually they may well bring such frustration, that all will tire of looking externally, and begin the REAL journey.... within!

You're basically saying that philosophical discussion only brings about frustration and that we should just all give into emotion to find our journey. Obviously I think that deep reasoning must be applied along with subjective experiences. There are many tremendous pitfalls associated with ignoring reasoning (I'm reminded of Germany in the early 1930's for example). I don't think it's a good idea. Sorry.

Why do you characterize philosophical discourse and debate as an "assault" Dave? It appears Dave that you disdain intelligent intellectual discourse. It is certainly an odd characterization of intelligent debate on a site dedicated to debate, is it not?

I find that debate leads, in most cases, to a torrent of words supporting one side or the other, with neither be pursuaded. It isn't until those words actually move someone to rethink their position, that anything changes. And that change is entirely internal, where all changes happen. What happens here, for the most part, is just verbal flack.

I must agree with Harvey that "deep reasoning must be applied along with subjective experience," and that there are "many tremendous pitfalls associated with ignoring reasoning." Jim Jones, Hale-Bopp, and David Koresh to name just a few.

The external trappings of whatever religion really are not what is critical.

I think I mentioned being love focused. The things that went on in those organizations were anything but love focused. It was all ego.

Are the "external trappings of whatever religion" really not important? What if the forced marriage of 12 or 13 year old girls is part of those external trappings Dave? What if those "external trappings" involves female circumcision of little girls? Is this all really just relative and of no importance?

Again, you choose not to understand what I wrote. Obviously, abusing little girls or anyone for that matter, is hardly love focused. This is exactly the kinds of exchanged I was refering to. The response was an obvious attempt to misunderstand, hoping to draw anger that would produce yet another torrent of unheard words.

Of course, I am sure that you would not argue that the abuse of children is an acceptable "external trapping," but then, would not this evaluation in itself require some critical thinking? So why then, do you dismiss Harvey's point?

I only dismiss the process. Debate is useful, only if the debater participates with a desire honestly to evaluate their position. I just cannot remember the last time I saw a response that said, "by gosh, you are right, and I was wrong!"

It seems you are missing or avoiding Harvey's point.

I can only assume you are using "heart" as a metaphor for "feelings," but would ask that you clarify what you mean by this apparent false dichotomy of heart vs. intellect?

Heart surely encompasses emotion, but obviously much more. God is Love, and we usually refer to the "heart" mediforically and the active center where Love functions.

Is it not through our higher "thinking" Dave that we come to percieve truth in all its forms?

No. Once you characterize your thought process as "higher", you enter into the realm of ego, and for all intents and purposes, block the path to linking your consciousness with God.

Or are you just trying to say that someone can be loving without being intelligent, and therefore intelligence is not a measure of one's closeness to God? In other words, are you trying to agrue that one's spiritual experience can be valid despite erroneous beliefs associated with such an experience?

Yup! Pretty much. God is no respector of persons. Our access to His love is not a mental exercise,(thankfully!).

Bro Dave

[harvey1]

What I am suggesting, is that there is no contradiction between what is true physically, and what is true spiritually. We just need to put down our word weapons, and understand that one is accessed by the intellect, where the other is only available via the heart. Both are viable, both are important to bring balance into our lives.

Okay, I misunderstood what you were originally saying. I think we mostly agree. Although, I still say that we cannot put aside "word weapons" because even though it may not appear like it has any merit other than exercise our "IQs," I think that religion cannot sit on the sidelines as religious faith is criticized as being completely irrational.

[Rob]

Again, I am lead to ask, do you disdain healthy, respectful, intellectual debate? You appear to when you say,

I only dismiss the process. Debate is useful, only if the debater participates with a desire honestly to evaluate their position. I just cannot remember the last time I saw a response that said, "by gosh, you are right, and I was wrong!"

While I agree with you Dave that it is unlikely that positions will change, and it is certainly rarely seen on this site, I don't see that as a valid reason to "dismiss the process." I think Harvey is right with regards to presenting intelligent philosophical arguments in the public domain to counter what some feel are fallacious arguments attempting to characterize all religious experience as irrational. And is that not all that Harvey and others are doing?

You regularly quote from the Urantia Book Dave, such as when you cite the exchange between Jesus and Ganid.

Help me understand what you mean in the following statement Dave:

Heart surely encompasses emotion, but obviously much more. God is Love, and we usually refer to the "heart" metaphorically and the active center where Love functions.

Is it not through our higher "thinking" Dave that we come to percieve truth in all its forms?

No. Once you characterize your thought process as "higher", you enter into the realm of ego, and for all intents and purposes, block the path to linking your consciousness with God.

You appear to be claiming in the pejorative sense that "higher thinking" is of the "realm of ego, and for all intents and purposes, block the path to linking your consciousness with God."

I personally view this as false dichotomy, a straw man, and contradicted by the Urantia Book itself. For only a few pages past the quotation from the Urantia Book you posted above, it is said:

Jesus and Ganid won many souls to higher levels of thinking and living and thus laid the foundation for the quick reception of the later gospel teachings when the first preachers from Jerusalem arrived. Jesus loved these Cretans, notwithstanding the harsh words which Paul later spoke concerning them when he subsequently sent Titus to the island to reorganize their churches. (1436.2)

Your comment above Dave is a in my view self-contradictory. It not only contradicts your behavior, in that you exercise your higher centers of thinking -- after all, it requires "thinking," "reflecting," and "thought" to make a point, which you have "stuck your neck out" to do -- in that you make arguments as you have done on this site, but then appear to be trying to claim a superior position by claiming that it is the "ego" that is involved with "higher levels of thinking and living," which is a concept expressed in The Urantia Book in numerous places. Now, why is it that you characterize "higher levels of thinking" as the "realm of the ego" in the pejorative sense, yet the Urantia Book has the following to say in direct contradiction to this claim:

Social service is the result of moral thinking and religious living. (68.7)

In olden times the fetish word of authority was a fear-inspiring doctrine, the most terrible of all tyrants which enslave men. A doctrinal fetish will lead mortal man to betray himself into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism, superstition, intolerance, and the most atrocious of barbarous cruelties. Modern respect for wisdom and truth is but the recent escape from the fetish-making tendency up to the higher levels of thinking and reasoning. Concerning the accumulated fetish writings which various religionists hold as sacred books, it is not only believed that what is in the book is true, but also that every truth is contained in the book. If one of these sacred books happens to speak of the earth as being flat, then, for long generations, otherwise sane men and women will refuse to accept positive evidence that the planet is round. (969.5)


Jesus was profoundly impressed by the temple and all the associated services and other activities. For the first time since he was four years old, he was too much preoccupied with his own meditations to ask many questions. He did, however, ask his father several embarrassing questions (as he had on previous occasions) as to why the heavenly Father required the slaughter of so many innocent and helpless animals. And his father well knew from the expression on the lad's face that his answers and attempts at explanation were unsatisfactory to his deep-thinking and keen-reasoning son. (1375.8)

Jesus possessed the ability effectively to mobilize all his powers of mind, soul, and body on the task immediately in hand. He could concentrate his deep-thinking mind on the one problem which he wished to solve, and this, in connection with his untiring patience, enabled him serenely to endure the trials of a difficult mortal existence--to live as if he were "seeing Him who is invisible." (1400.7)

The [indwelling spirit] has no special mechanism through which to gain self-expression; there is no mystic religious faculty for the reception or expression of religious emotions. These experiences are made available through the naturally ordained mechanism of mortal mind. (1104)

Religious habits of thinking and acting are contributory to the economy of spiritual growth. One can develop religious predispositions toward favorable reaction to spiritual stimuli, a sort of conditioned spiritual reflex. Habits which favor religious growth embrace cultivated sensitivity to divine values, recognition of religious living in others, reflective meditation on cosmic meanings, worshipful problem solving, sharing one's spiritual life with one's fellows, avoidance of selfishness, refusal to presume on divine mercy, living as in the presence of God. The factors of religious growth may be intentional, but the growth itself is unvaryingly unconscious. (1095.3)

Here is a clear example of the use of "reflective thinking" in the philosophical evaluation of a religious belief:

It was very early believed that ghosts administered justice through the medicine men and priests; this constituted these orders the first crime detectors and officers of the law. Their early methods of detecting crime consisted in conducting ordeals of poison, fire, and pain. These savage ordeals were nothing more than crude techniques of arbitration; they did not necessarily settle a dispute justly. For example: When poison was administered, if the accused vomited, he was innocent. (795.2)

The Old Testament records one of these ordeals [Numbers 5:12], a marital guilt test: If a man suspected his wife of being untrue to him, he took her to the priest and stated his suspicions, after which the priest would prepare a concoction consisting of holy water and sweepings from the temple floor. After due ceremony, including threatening curses, the accused wife was made to drink the nasty potion. If she was guilty, "the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thighs shall rot, and the woman shall be accursed among her people." If, by any chance, any woman could quaff this filthy draught and not show symptoms of physical illness, she was acquitted of the charges made by her jealous husband. (795.3)

These atrocious methods of crime detection were practiced by almost all the evolving tribes at one time or another. Dueling is a modern survival of the trial by ordeal. (795.4)

It is not to be wondered that the Hebrews and other semicivilized tribes practiced such primitive techniques of justice administration three thousand years ago, but it is most amazing that thinking men would subsequently retain such a relic of barbarism within the pages of a collection of sacred writings. Reflective thinking should make it clear that no divine being ever gave mortal man such unfair instructions regarding the detection and adjudication of suspected marital unfaithfulness. (795.5)

So here is where I am having difficulty understanding what you are claiming Dave. If you are, as you seem to be, characterizing "deep thinking," "higher thinking," and "reflective thinking" as in the pejorative sense of the "realm of ego" (a phrase found nowhere in the Urantia Book) and blocking our ability to achieve a consciousness of God:

Once you characterize your thought process as "higher", you enter into the realm of ego, and for all intents and purposes, block the path to linking your consciousness with God.

Ignoring the fact that the Urantia Book makes statements 180 degrees in contradiction to your claim, one can look back through your posts were you repeatedly claim that there is a "higher level" of spiritual experience and viewing reality, and you even make intellectual arguments to support this claim. So your own statements in other posts contradict the statement above.

If you are claiming, as you seem to be above, that we do not approach a relative understanding of truth via "higher, reflective, deep thinking," which you characterize as pejoratively as the realm of ego, then I would have to disagree and point out that your own arguments/claims/words contradict your words above, and clearly the Urantia Book, the book you frequently quote, does not support this claim either.

Now, if what you really intend to say is that

The intellectual factors of religion are important, but their overdevelopment is likewise sometimes very handicapping and embarrassing. Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking. (1121.3)

Then I would agree; at least then it would be consistent in that it is a paradox that we do perceive higher meanings and values through the exercise of higher, reflective, deep thinking, but our ability to experience God's presence transcends even our highest thinking.

The pursuit of knowledge constitutes science; the search for wisdom is philosophy; the love for God is religion; the hunger for truth is a revelation. But it is the indwelling [Spirit] that attaches the feeling of reality to man's spiritual insight into the cosmos. (1122.8)

The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this "sense," "feeling," "intuition," or "experience" which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man ... presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman. (1130.5)

[harvey1]

While I agree with you Dave that it is unlikely that positions will change, and it is certainly rarely seen on this site, I don't see that as a valid reason to "dismiss the process." I think Harvey is right with regards to presenting intelligent philosophical arguments in the public domain to counter what some feel are fallacious arguments attempting to characterize all religious experience as irrational. And is that not all that Harvey and others are doing?

Rob,

I appreciate your comments...

This is off the subject for a second, but I'm a little puzzled by the Urantia book debates between those who share the same faith (or so I assume). I mean, there's a few people on this forum who seem to be in division with regard to their Urantia faith. Is there a major division or reformation with regard to Urantians (I hope this name is not insulting since I have no idea what else to call people who believe that the Urantia book is inspired text)? Perhaps this division is something similar to Protestants and Catholics, or Sunnis and Shiites? I recall some people debating where both people held Urantia to be inspired text.

Just as an outsider, it seems very difficult to understand why someone would believe that extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) landed here on earth and gave the Urantia book to humanity. I can understand religious books claiming that they are inspired by God (since God might influence our subjective experiences--ha ha I succeeded at getting this tangent back on topic afterall...), but with ETI presumably their presence would be immediately known (e.g., the movie "Independence Day" or "War of the Worlds").

Anyway, I'm just curious as to why the Urantia people disagree so intensely when there can't be that many of you guys. Prior to Dave I had never even so much as heard of this religious belief.

What the heck does Urantia mean, anyway??

[Rob]

Rob,

I appreciate your comments...

The feelings are mutual; I appreciate your philosophical arguments Harvey.

This is off the subject for a second, but I'm a little puzzled by the Urantia book debates between those who share the same faith (or so I assume).

What is so puzzling Harvey? Intelligent Christians are able to respectfully debate and discuss differences of viewpoint regarding scriptural interpretation, as are intelligent religionist of all traditions. In fact, the very foundation of inter-faith dialogue is predicated upon this truth and reality. One can be a free-thinker and still benefit from the wealth of spiritual wisdom within the religious traditions of the world.

I just felt it was important to point out Harvey, that the Urantia Book does not disdain, dismiss, or describe in pejorative terms intellectual and philosophical endeavors. It clearly does not setup a false dichotomy of ego-intellect vs. spiritual-heart, where one (thinking) is characterized as of the "ego" while the other ("heart" or feelings-emotions) are spiritual. I personally believe you are correct when you say there "are many tremendous pitfalls associated with ignoring reasoning." One does not need to look far to find evidence of just such credulous beliefs and the consequences for those who abandon reason and end up foolishly fulfilling the saying of "The blind leading the blind."

From my experience the teachings of the Urantia Book fully support your intellectual endeavors to develop a healthy and coordinated philosophy of living. It certainly teaches a positive role for "deep, reflective, and higher thinking" and the coordinating role of philosophy in harmonizing our scientific and religious experiences as they are found in the human quest for factual knowledge, philosophical meanings, and spiritual insights. I just thought this was worth pointing out.

So, I'd just like to stress the importance of looking at the philosophical and scientific issues. Approach these matters honestly and with much diligence. Keep enjoying the subjective experiences as our main gateway to the divine, but I don't think that subjective experiences will help us much in communicating across these conceptual framework differences that we have.

The religious challenge of this age is to those farseeing and forward-looking men and women of spiritual insight who will dare to construct a new and appealing philosophy of living out of the enlarged and exquisitely integrated modern concepts of cosmic truth, universe beauty, and divine goodness. Such a new and righteous vision of morality will attract all that is good in the mind of man and challenge that which is best in the human soul. Truth, beauty, and goodness are divine realities, and as man ascends the scale of spiritual living, these supreme qualities of the Eternal become increasingly co-ordinated and unified in God, who is love. (43.3)

The world is filled with lost souls, not lost in the theologic sense but lost in the directional meaning, wandering about in confusion among the isms and cults of a frustrated philosophic era. Too few have learned how to install a philosophy of living in the place of religious authority. (The symbols of socialized religion are not to be despised as channels of growth, albeit the river bed is not the river.) (1098.4)

The great difference between a religious and a nonreligious philosophy of living consists in the nature and level of recognized values and in the object of loyalties. There are four phases in the evolution of religious philosophy: Such an experience may become merely conformative, resigned to submission to tradition and authority. Or it may be satisfied with slight attainments, just enough to stabilize the daily living, and therefore becomes early arrested on such an adventitious level. Such mortals believe in letting well enough alone. A third group progress to the level of logical intellectuality but there stagnate in consequence of cultural slavery. It is indeed pitiful to behold giant intellects held so securely within the cruel grasp of cultural bondage. It is equally pathetic to observe those who trade their cultural bondage for the materialistic fetters of a science, falsely so called. The fourth level of philosophy attains freedom from all conventional and traditional handicaps and dares to think, act, and live honestly, loyally, fearlessly, and truthfully. (1114.2)

It seems to me Harvey, that more or less, you are one of those "forward-looking" individuals of spiritual insight attempting to evolve a new philosophy of living. At least, that is what I have seen in your philosophical arguments so far.

The experience of God-consciousness remains the same from generation to generation, but with each advancing epoch in human knowledge the philosophic concept and the theologic definitions of God must change. God-knowingness, religious consciousness, is a universe reality, but no matter how valid (real) religious experience is, it must be willing to subject itself to intelligent criticism and reasonable philosophic interpretation; it must not seek to be a thing apart in the totality of human experience. (69.7)

After all, isn't our spiritual unity founded upon our common relationship with God (I suppose for the atheist this could be "evolutionary humanity"), while there is room for diversity of belief and philosophical interpretation, rather than being founded upon intellectual uniformity of beliefs about books, experiences, etc.

In addition, I can appreciate the beauty and truth of the more elevated and morally and spiritual fragrant sayings in the Bible without being required to accept it as the infallible TRUTH verse for verse; so too can we not appreciate philosophical meanings found in other religious texts from around the world (i.e., comparative religion), including the Urantia Book, without necessarily having to accept their internal revelatory claims?

Just as an outsider, it seems very difficult to understand why someone would believe that extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) landed here on earth and gave the Urantia book to humanity. I can understand religious books claiming that they are inspired by God (since God might influence our subjective experiences--ha ha I succeeded at getting this tangent back on topic afterall...), but with ETI presumably their presence would be immediately known (e.g., the movie "Independence Day" or "War of the Worlds").

Now that were back on topic I don't have to feel so guilty

I truly sympathize with your difficulty Harvey, and that is why you will never find me insisting that you accept any claim made in the Urantia Book (or any other source for that matter) without honest critical examination. I wouldn't ask anything less from someone else, so I certainly must give you that much. But I am able to critically examine the content of any religious and philosophical text independent of its so-called "inspired" origin.

As for ETI, well, I am puzzled how the concept God is not the ultimate ETI? And if we can know and experience God-consciousness, is not the source of of such a spiritual realization "extra-terrestrial" in origin by its very definition?

But yes, I know I am avoiding the issue of the internal claim that the Urantia Book is a revelation authored by celestial beings And yes, it is certainly bizarre, if that is the word I can use. But that would be another topic I think.

Regarding "the movie 'Independence Day' or 'War of the Worlds,'" I think I can see a lot of philosophical inconsistencies with the universe as we know it through science, philosophy, and religion that would question the assumptions in both of these cosmic models of "extra terrestrial" beings and the spiritual universe in toto; but that is another thread too

What the heck does Urantia mean, anyway??

Urantia purportedly means Earth.

[Bro Dave]

Again, I am lead to ask, do you disdain healthy, respectful, intellectual debate? You appear to when you say,

I only dismiss the process. Debate is useful, only if the debater participates with a desire honestly to evaluate their position. I just cannot remember the last time I saw a response that said, "by gosh, you are right, and I was wrong!"

While I agree with you Dave that it is unlikely that positions will change, and it is certainly rarely seen on this site, I don't see that as a valid reason to "dismiss the process." I think Harvey is right with regards to presenting intelligent philosophical arguments in the public domain to counter what some feel are fallacious arguments attempting to characterize all religious experience as irrational. And is that not all that Harvey and others are doing?

If I may be blunt here, You and Harvey are both word merchants. You love to post, and you love the intense exchanges, even though they produce little except ego satisfaction at having displayed your sagacity and writing abilities. That is to say, way to much effort, for no real purpose, other than fluffing one’s own pillow, so to speak,

You regularly quote from the Urantia Book Dave, such as when you cite the exchange between Jesus and Ganid.

Help me understand what you mean in the following statement Dave:

Heart surely encompasses emotion, but obviously much more. God is Love, and we usually refer to the "heart" metaphorically and the active center where Love functions.

Is it not through our higher "thinking" Dave that we come to percieve truth in all its forms?

No. Once you characterize your thought process as "higher", you enter into the realm of ego, and for all intents and purposes, block the path to linking your consciousness with God.

You appear to be claiming in the pejorative sense that "higher thinking" is of the "realm of ego, and for all intents and purposes, block the path to linking your consciousness with God."

No, not quite. What I am saying is, when you become conscious that you are “exercising higher levels of thinking”, it is difficult to get you ego out of the way, so that the truly “higher thoughts” God has for you, can get through!

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

This is off the subject for a second, but I'm a little puzzled by the Urantia book debates between those who share the same faith (or so I assume). I mean, there's a few people on this forum who seem to be in division with regard to their Urantia faith. Is there a major division or reformation with regard to Urantians (I hope this name is not insulting since I have no idea what else to call people who believe that the Urantia book is inspired text)?

Urantians is just fine! Now, as to Rob and myself having “divisons regarding the Urantia faith”; First of all, Urantia is the Universe name for our planet. It is not the name of a religion. The Urantia Book simply is the latest update to our little planet, and it attempts to put all in proper perspective. It is time folks stop picking at what they see wrong in other religions, and begin to share the many wonderful unique visions of each. It also give us a wonderful and awe inspiring view of the Universe, and how it is administered, and of God Himself,(as well as we are able to comprehend). Maybe best of all, it give an eyewitness account by celestials present, of the life of Jesus. Anyone who already loves Jesus, will simply be awestruck after reading this account.
Secondly, Rob and I have no real dispute over what the UB says, only what Rob thinks I think! (he is wrong)

Perhaps this division is something similar to Protestants and Catholics, or Sunnis and Shiites? I recall some people debating where both people held Urantia to be inspired text.

Hmmm, “inspired” makes me very uncomfortable. It is not a “holy book”. It is simply the 5th in a series of revelations given mankind.(Jesus brought the last one) In fact, the UB goes to great length to tell us that is has errors! These are the product of limitations placed on those who were commissioned to deliver the book. Constraints of language, and of not being allowed to give us “unearned “ scientific knowledge, meant a certain amount of distortion was inevitable. However, what is revealed, is so fascinating, that the small percentage to which they refer really has no impact on the message it was meant to reveal; i.e. God is our Father, and we are therefore, all brothers and sisters. But while that may seem like a small revelation on the surface, the 2000+ pages will challenge even the best and the brightest at times.

As an outsider, it seems very difficult to understand why someone would believe that extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) landed here on earth and gave the Urantia book to humanity.

There was no “landing of any ETI’s. It was decided that literacy was sufficient this time, to place the revelation in book form, in the English language, since it spoken widely, and is rich in meanings. They also hoped to defocus the message from any human messangers. (we are sooo easily distracted!)

I hope this diatribe helped to demystify the book a little. ! I’ve been reading the UB for 30 + years, and I know of many readers who have read it as many as 15 time, still finding it new and interesting.

Bro Dave

[harvey1]

There was no “landing of any ETI’s. It was decided that literacy was sufficient this time, to place the revelation in book form, in the English language

Are you saying that SETI has picked up a radio message from ETIs without telling the public? I'm not sure what you mean. What star system did this message come from, how come they aren't still making contact? (To be honest, this sounds more like a bad sci-fi plot more than it does an event that religious beliefs and a book are based on.)

[harvey1]

If I may be blunt here, You and Harvey are both word merchants. You love to post, and you love the intense exchanges, even though they produce little except ego satisfaction at having displayed your sagacity and writing abilities. That is to say, way to much effort, for no real purpose, other than fluffing one’s own pillow, so to speak,

That's not exactly true. For example, The Happy Humanist said that he came here to learn if there were any arguments for God's existence that he had never heard before, and he said that my arguments were new to him and that this satisfied his reason for coming here. I think it is way too early to make a judgment as to the effect that logical reasoning has upon others. It takes years for someone's conceptual scheme to be shattered, and it often starts off years earlier with philosophical discussions that made someone think differently. In any case, even if it changes no one's opinion or view, I think it at least provides what many people want to see: a reasoned response to how someone can believe something that to them is totally and completely irrational. I think that it is not irrational, and therefore it makes sense as a person of faith to explain that to them in words that they can at least grasp. I think that arguments for people to seek subjective openness are also important, but they of themselves do not provide any reason for why believing is anything but irrational. Afterall, someone might ask us to believe in a number of strange beliefs based on subjective awareness if we don't seek sound reasons for our views. Surely the non-theist cannot be expected to subjectively seek and be open to all strange possibilities.