The big mistake

THERE is a school of thought that truth is based on believing something is so.

But the first tool in navigating through life is recognizing that we do not control reality. Reality exists whatever we believe.

Atheists claim that faith in the existence of God is pure illusion.

But that in itself is a faith claim.

But the real illusion is to imagine that the complex nature of our planet could be created by chance.

The illusion is that human nature is all determined by the environment or genetics, with no choice how a person acts or lives.

It’s a self-reinforcing delusion. that will continue to be believed in the face of contrary evidence.


19 thoughts on “The big mistake

  1. Environment and genetics are God given, I believe. Then it’s up to us how we deal with these factors.

    We (probably) have no say in our genetics, but certainly our environment is affected by others. If you are in distress someone else’s action can alter your whole life. It would be nice to think we could fill our role as God’s agents to the best of our ability. And I don’t mean agents of a man-made creed.

    I include Christianity in that. The religion preached by Paul was not the same as Jesus taught, but I don’t know if Pauline Christianity is God’s will or not. All I know is that through prayer and being willing to be guided, we can come closest to His will.


  2. Reality exists whatever we believe? On the surface. We can change reality, and often have.

    Material things can be changed by physical action. For better or worse.

    Non-material things such as behaviour, attitudes, can be changed with introduction of new ideas, changed by thought processes. For better or worse.

    It is beyond my ability to conceive of a creator of the complex nature of our planet, let alone the universe, and I wonder why should I bother? God has put us here – let’s deal with it.


      • Rian, I experience a presence I call God, but I don’t know if this is really so. It may be, for instance, an angel, but in any case is something good and holy. Now imagine if such an angel put us here, in the hope we might grow and learn, to swell the ranks of those who serve the unknowable God as his agents in unimaginable circumstances.


      • As I understand it, Dreamweaver, that ‘experience’ is the common basis for ‘belief-in-the-divine’.
        But what I find incomprehensible is why the experience needs to be attributed to a ‘god’ ~ or ANY outside agency.
        Why can’t it (much more plausibly) simply be a ‘connection’ to your own ‘inner-self’/essence….which can reassure you and lift you as an expression of the (unlabelled and unlabel-able) part of you that ~ in the best traditions of physical science ~ has always existed and always will exist?

        …..but the question was :- ‘WHY did ‘god’ bother?’ (or: ‘why WOULD he?’)

        Are YOU familiar with Jonathan Livingston Seagull?
        Perhaps the most inspiring little book ever: and one that Jesus himself might’ve written to get his message across.


      • Dabbles, if you are really interested in inner selves, higher levels of consciousness, etc, you might like some theosophical readings, or some from the Liberal Catholic Church, or M.F.Long’s book The Secret Science Behind Miracles .There’s a terrific lot you would not, I think, feel right for you, just some might be.

        Also you could look here.


      • Hi Dreamweaver,

        I’m beginning to wonder if by any chance we ever met. Re your posting Sept 3, at 7.43. the third line of the message brings back some of my history. Was involved ‘semi-professionally’ with people there in Melbourne and in Perth back in the 60s and 70s. Have also given lectures to the TS.

        Must say it’s nice to have company on this blog, who knows what I’m talking about.


      • Have we met, Rian? At a week-long LCC convention I was awarded a certificate in theology, as, I believe, the first and only non-member. Many people there I didn’t know, perhaps you were one.


  3. Evolution vs. God – The full video is on YouTube and it’s making waves. At the moment there si more than 50,000 comments on it. Really interesting to watch.

    He is basically challenging atheists to prove that they don’t also rely on faith.


    • Whether you’re an atheist or a believer, regardless of whether you have faith or not, regardless of the object or source of such faith, the REALTY is that you CAN’T walk on water without a flotation device.

      And given that reality, the issue of ‘faith’ is a strawman….and an irrelevant one at that.
      That upteen people have taken up a challenge that doesn’t exist does no more than prove that other reality:- many people can live without a brain. 😉


    • Why do some people who believe in God assume they cannot believe in evolution. I believe in evolution but not between species.


      • That’s like saying, Dom, you like basketball, but not with baskets and balls.
        In any case, whatever you ‘believe’, the evidence is in.
        …and the evolutionary process (on this planet) is V-E-R-R-R-Y much older than the ‘creation’ described biblically….Roughly in the order of a drop of water in Sydney Harbour.

        If you ‘believe’ the so-called ‘holy books’ you CANNOT also believe in evolutionary theory…….despite what the Vatican says.

        ….even in purely logistically terms:- try explaining how ‘Noah’ managed to drop off 2 wombats and 2 wallabies in Oz without drowning them.
        Or how he acquired them in the first place.

        This issue REALLY is an either/or one.


      • I just now (response to your challenge to Dom) had a look at the video, Kathleen, and can only say the moron (who didn’t even know what a ‘stickleback’ is, among other things) is lucky he didn’t interview me! I don’t allow pushy fools to put words into my mouth.

        He not only persisted in ringing in countless what-if irrelevancies, his leading questions are an affront to anybody with a brain.
        …and for all his harassment over the word ‘kind’ I note he NEVER defined what he means by the word.

        In any case the basic premises of the whole subject were based on misrepresentations:- @1 min 22 seconds:

        “Live Science says of evolution:
        “It can turn dinosaurs into birds.
        apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales”

        ….and due to NO lack of information available these days these falsehoods can only be deliberate lies to try stacking the deck.

        ie: Typical of the breed,(and especially those with NO qualifications whatsoever) he’s dishonest.
        Religion and politics are the only two fields where you can make a name (and a living!) for yourself with having any expertise in any field of endeavour.

        ……or skill, for that matter, other than being able to recognise gullible nitwits at 50 paces.

        Mind you, he ~ and others like him ~ are the best possible evidence AGAINST evolution! 🙂


    • Why do so many people insist that creation has to be ‘creationism’, an opposition to evolution? We are willing enough to have faith in scientists that gave us knowledge of electricity, of medicine, of so many things that the ordinary student can’t explain in depth – what’s the difference?

      The argument between creationists and atheists (not agnostics, which many scientists are) is not equal. Creationists do all they can to convince others of their beliefs, rather like lawyers manipulating witnesses, presenting only favourable evidence, using what tricks they can.

      Scientists however present all the knowledge they have, weighed up to the best of their ability, and are always prepared to look at new evidence. Science is the ongoing search, not a creed. Hopefully an atheistic scientist would remain true to this training, but agnostic is often a better description than atheist anyway.


  4. tsktsktsk….

    “Atheists claim that faith in the existence of God is pure illusion.” ~ false assumption. I’m an atheist and have never claimed that. Nor has any atheist I know.

    “But the real illusion is to imagine that the complex nature of our planet could be created by chance.” ~ another false assumption. I’ve consistently said ~ and anyone with more than 37 braincells would agree ~ that the ‘nature of out planet’ (and the universe) is entirely ‘created’ by ‘Cause and Effect’….as far from ‘chance’ as it’s possible to get.

    “Chance” is when an ‘eternal’ god picks some random moment in all Eternity to, on a whim, ‘create the heavens and the earth’ from nothing, for no stated reason and without purpose….and who then endlessly meddles with said creation because he’s not happy with his obviously unplanned and therefore dysfunctional stuff-up; who makes it up as he goes and who changes his mind from moment to moment ~ apparently entirely at random ~ and ad-libs the rules depending on his mood, inexplicably arrived at, in the instant ~ and who displays no whit of reason, cause-and-effect or rationality.

    And if you want to an example of a ‘creation’ that wouldn’t get past first base with the most generous Planning Department imaginable you need look no further than that hodge-podge, built from left-over bits from the ‘creation’ of the beasts of the field, etc., we call ‘human beings’.
    ie,,, those things we also ~ entirely, if unsurprisingly, on a random whim ~ describe themselves as said god’s ultimate creation!
    The only feasible part of the whole silly yarn is that human beings were indeed ‘created in the image of said god himself’:- haphazard, irascible and overweeningly self-absorbed.

    Leaving aside any alleged activity of that Klutz, there’s nothing (that I can think of: correct me if I’m wrong!) in this Universe that happens ‘by chance’.

    Water runs downhill for a reason.
    We breathe air because if we didn’t we wouldn’t BE here.
    The sun doesn’t shine so’s we can see, otherwise it’d shine ALL the time.

    ….and even if it did some people would still be stumbling around in the dark, groping for a god that reality dictates, isn’t there.

    …even by chance.

    Another creation by God’s Planning and Engineering Department —->


  5. Indeed……..”THERE is a school of thought that truth is based on believing something is so.”

    It’s generally called a ‘christian school’, ‘madrasa’, ‘yeshiva’, or variations thereof.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s