Quick Question Relating to Religion

Hey guys,

After long hard work, my book is nearing its second revision. The length of the script is now almost doubled (rounded up) and lots of corrections to grammar, organization, style, etc have been done. For what's left, I'm curious if people have something they want to add to the book? By this I mean, maybe suggest ideas you think I might have missed, which you find interesting, maybe some hypotheticals I didn't cover. Maybe some personal experiences. Could be on a broad range of topics... morality, factual nature of religion, objectivity vs subjectivity, science vs religion, future of religion or future of atheism, superstitions, fallacies, logic... etc. Maybe even a joke about religion. Maybe an introduction to my book. But you should already know this is a book on atheism, so I will not be adding entire articles on the wonders of god and how faith is awesome. There is a slight chance I'll use your arguments in my book to refute it though.

I am of course not obligated to add your opinions or contribution to the book, because I need to fact-check the data and consider the contribution worthwhile to make a place for it in my book.

Not expecting too much here, but ehh, worth a shot. It'd be remiss if I didn't try to get all the information I can. After this revision, there won't be a third revision any time soon, I can guarantee that. It takes too long to revise a book. Maybe next year. Or after that.

Wait, did I miss your book's draft?

The first edition is in the thread I believe. I just uploaded a draft.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Comments, questions, suggestions on book design from the cover to the organization to the font to the page numbers to the writing style, to the grammar to the arguments and whatnot all accepted. Let's try to get it right this time, make it of a very high quality if possible. I'm still re-reading my book searching for typos.

I see.
I'll post my remarks as I read.

Israel –
Land which people of conflicting religions have fought over.

Not true. People fought over land, not a country.
Yes, today it's modern Israel. But it's the first time it's Israel actually.
Ancient "bible" state was actually 2 states (who fought for political and other power) - Land of Ehuda in the south and the center - and Land of Israel in the north. Actually Jerusalem was later the main religious place of Land of Ehuda, which they tried to impose on Land of Israel (instead of their big (but less monotheistic centers) in the north) after Land of Israel was captured and destroyed by a king I can't remember his name....Some researches claim it's the reason for writing the Bible we know now - to project common history and make Jerusalem the main, and monotheistic place, over sacred places of the north.

Long story short - this piece of land everyone fought on - is called "Palestine" - named after philistines - peoples who came from the sea and took over south Israel and south Lebanon

Religion – A collection of belief systems regarding multiple things on this list:

You forgot Karma.

Each child is born not believing there is a god

This is debatable. See "Indigo Children" and also books like "Children's Past Lifes"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One point which both deists and theists miss is the idea of infinite
regression. Simply put, if god made the universe, who made god? Who made the
maker of god?

Well, regression doesn't really work here. Because regression is linear and time-related. Because term "creation" assumes not only existence of time, unrelatable to anything (and not as something that need to be created by itself) - but also that time is linear and it's one thing lineary creating other thing. New Age claims time is not linear and all happens in the same Eternal Moment of Now. And that non-linear time is circular.
If there is no time - things can just exist "eternally", without noone need to make it.
If time is not linear - but (just as one example from endless variations) circular - then universe is creating itself and was never created by someone else.
Etc etc... Like time being an effect created by the human brain itself as something that cannot handle simultaneous time - and so it arranges it into a particular frame order.
I have another question - how you define God? How you know that this deity is God? How God knows he is God, and not just entity created by other God? What makes someone God? Ability to create universes, or creating planets is enouph?

'Not true. People fought over land, not a country.'
Ok I'll try to make a more obvious distinction.

'This is debatable. See "Indigo Children" and also books like "Children's Past Lifes"'
Strongly disagree. That seems like mumbo jumbo to me. It makes no scientific sense in terms of reincarnation.

'The technique used during past life regression involves the subject answering a series of questions while hypnotized to reveal identity and events of alleged past lives, a method similar to that used in recovered memory therapy and one that similarly misrepresents memory as a faithful recording of previous events rather than a constructed set of recollections. The use of hypnosis and suggestive questions makes the subject particularly likely to hold distorted or false memories.[3] The source of the memories is more likely cryptomnesia and confabulations that combine experiences, knowledge, imagination and suggestion or guidance from the hypnotist than recall of a previous existence. Once created, the memories are indistinguishable from memories based on events that occurred during the subject's life.[1][2] Memories reported during past life regression have been investigated, and revealed historical inaccuracies that are easily explained through a basic knowledge of history, elements of popular culture or books that discuss historical events. Experiments with subjects undergoing past life regression indicate that a belief in reincarnation and suggestions by the hypnotist are the two most important factors regarding the contents of memories reported.[1][4][5]'

'Well, regression doesn't really work here. Because regression is linear and time-related. Because term "creation" assumes not only existence of time, unrelatable to anything (and not as something that need to be created by itself) - but also that time is linear and it's one thing lineary creating other thing.'
I think the best way would put it like this.

1. We have the start of the universe mapped out. We have science for that. But you wish to say god created the universe.
2. If you say god created the universe and doesn't need a cause, you've committed special pleading. There is no direct evidence that universe requires such a creator. If we can allow a god to not have a cause, the universe doesn't need a cause. Only of course, there's no evidence for your position.
3. If you grant a god may need a creator then you run into infinite regression.
4. But no matter which path you pick, you have absolutely no proof either way.

But even if we grant that there must be a cause to the universe and the cause is outside of space and time, that doesn't mean the cause is a sentient god. There's not philosophical basis that the creator is a he or a she. The only time I've observed a sentient being create things, it is on earth. Yet here we are presented with an unfalsifiable hypothesis of a sentient being outside of space and time causing the universe and violating all known laws of nature, in this universe where god took so much care to hide himself from us.

On a good note, I didn't think of regression that way so far. So I'll look into modifying it.

'how you define God? How you know that this deity is God? How God knows he is God, and not just entity created by other God? What makes someone God? Ability to create universes, or creating planets is enouph?'
I typically start by taking the definition of the person I'm talking to. Because many people have many different concepts of what god is, the word is kind of vague. But by default I assume the concept means some creator who made everything and is typically all-powerful and timeless.

Dark_wizzie wrote:That seems like mumbo jumbo to me.

That is not a proof it's a mambo jumbo....you got to know that

On a good note, I didn't think of regression that way so far. So I'll look into modifying it.

Why not to try one yourself - from the best regressionist on Earth? Tell us your direct experience. There is nothing like personal experience.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There is not only regression to past lifes - but also progression for
potential future incarnations....you might read about this as well. Even
more impressive than past regression...and even more - when combined.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We all have lived past lives. We all will live future ones. What we do
in this life will influence our lives to come as we evolve toward
immortality. Dr. Weiss encourages this important recognition because
recently he has not only regressed his patients into the past, but has
progressed them into the future. And what they have discovered is that
our futures are variable, so the choices we make now will determine the
quality of life when we return.

Past lifes is an interesting subject. And there are some serious and
peer-reviewed researches, like of legendary Dr. Ian Stevenson.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But you wish to say god created the universe.

Where I said that? What do you know what I beleive in - or not?

The only time I've observed a sentient being create things, it is on earth

Yes, the famous "If Dogs would have religion they'd see it as a huge dog with large pile of bones" argument.
Yet I didn't describe anything sentinent...New Age concept of God is closer to the one in famous "Conversation with God" books bestsellers. Very philosophical - I'd suggest you to read. There are some very advanced conceptions of God there.

doomjedi wrote:

Dark_wizzie wrote:That seems like mumbo jumbo to me.

That is not a proof it's a mambo jumbo....you got to know that

On a good note, I didn't think of regression that way so far. So I'll look into modifying it.

Why not to try one yourself - from the best regressionist on Earth? Tell us your direct experience. There is nothing like personal experience.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There is not only regression to past lifes - but also progression for
potential future incarnations....you might read about this as well. Even
more impressive than past regression...and even more - when combined.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We all have lived past lives. We all will live future ones. What we do
in this life will influence our lives to come as we evolve toward
immortality. Dr. Weiss encourages this important recognition because
recently he has not only regressed his patients into the past, but has
progressed them into the future. And what they have discovered is that
our futures are variable, so the choices we make now will determine the
quality of life when we return.

Past lifes is an interesting subject. And there are some serious and
peer-reviewed researches, like of legendary Dr. Ian Stevenson.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But you wish to say god created the universe.

Where I said that? What do you know what I beleive in - or not?

The only time I've observed a sentient being create things, it is on earth

Yes, the famous "If Dogs would have religion they'd see it as a huge dog with large pile of bones" argument.
Yet I didn't describe anything sentinent...New Age concept of God is closer to the one in famous "Conversation with God" books bestsellers. Very philosophical - I'd suggest you to read. There are some very advanced conceptions of God there.

The way I posted what I would write is as it will be written in the book, not necessarily to directly address what you think. So when you said 'when did I say that', you didn't. There are many ideas of god, yes. Each person has their own notion of what god is, what evidence is required if any, and all these concepts are mutually incompatiable with each other. Yet they think they have the one correct position without any evidence.

There is an interesting TV show in Russia "Invisible Man".

All kind of "specialists" from all areas (from palmistry and shamans - to traditional psychologist and top criminalist) need to guess and tell all the details about celebrity in the other room (from his items or fingerpints or drawings)....from gender, to visual appearance, to character to their past and present.
All do amazing job, way beyond any logic, non-traditional ones do even much better job and tell things to amazing details and with unbelievable accuracy. At the last phase they need to select his/her photo from 16 (or 20?) photos of celebrities. All are almost always right. The last show all 6 specialist guessed the same celebrity. This is beyond logic.

doomjedi wrote:There is an interesting TV show in Russia "Invisible Man".

All kind of "specialists" from all areas (from palmistry and shamans - to traditional psychologist and top criminalist) need to guess and tell all the details about celebrity in the other room (from his items or fingerpints or drawings)....from gender, to visual appearance, to character to their past and present.
All do amazing job, way beyond any logic, non-traditional ones do even much better job and tell things to amazing details and with unbelievable accuracy. At the last phase they need to select his/her photo from 16 (or 20?) photos of celebrities. All are almost always right. The last show all 6 specialist guessed the same celebrity. This is beyond logic.

Head over to Randy and they'll fail just like any other.

doomjedi wrote:There is an interesting TV show in Russia "Invisible Man".

All kind of "specialists" from all areas (from palmistry and shamans - to traditional psychologist and top criminalist) need to guess and tell all the details about celebrity in the other room (from his items or fingerpints or drawings)....from gender, to visual appearance, to character to their past and present.
All do amazing job, way beyond any logic, non-traditional ones do even much better job and tell things to amazing details and with unbelievable accuracy. At the last phase they need to select his/her photo from 16 (or 20?) photos of celebrities. All are almost always right. The last show all 6 specialist guessed the same celebrity. This is beyond logic.

That is called TV-magic.

Dark_wizzie wrote:Head over to Randy and they'll fail just like any other.

Yes, the famous Randy, the SuperMan of Skeptics.

You basically say that the TV program is a scam and they give them away celebrities prior to the show?
From all I can tell - it's not so....and I have carefull eye for such things. For example celebrity has a 1-time-use veto to prevent them saying publically something that is too private for him/her - and some celebrities used it.
Veto rule wasn't in the first shows, and was probably inserted because celebrities complained that experts reveal too much of them, too personal - like unofficial children out of marriage and such - things noone knows and no celebrity would agree to come to the show if those will be revealed.
Also you see reaction of celebrity in real time...seems no fake. Very sincere reactions.

Also you say that when some of them select the wrong celebrity - it's intentional too?
Those are professionals working not only on that show - such thing can hurt them.

All of experts are with headphones in separate booth so they hear or see nothing of what others say. They also get no indication from the host if their direction is right.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ronwolf1705 wrote:That is called TV-magic.

Usually people don't come to your home to do such things.

Why is it their fault the only world view you get is from TV?

If you can fake things on TV - does it prove that all you see on TV is fake?
If you can fake news broadcast - does it prove all news are fake?
If you can fix any image with photoshop - does it prove that all photos on the internet are fake?

Ability to fake - doesn't prove it's fake.

doomjedi wrote:

ronwolf1705 wrote:That is called TV-magic.

Usually people don't come to your home to do such things.

Why is it their fault the only world view you get is from TV?

If you can fake things on TV - does it prove that all you see on TV is fake?
If you can fake news broadcast - does it prove all news are fake?
If you can fix any image with photoshop - does it prove that all photos on the internet are fake?

Ability to fake - doesn't prove it's fake.

Well, believe what you want to believe, but I definitely consider it fake. It's amusement, and should be treated as such.

Lol, one of them is wearing a cape, that makes it rather hard for me to take the show seriously!

He is a shaman.
BTW he is one of the constantly most accurate and amazing experts. And one people usually love most.
Yesterday I watched like 5 episodes in a raw.

Dean wrote:Lol, one of them is wearing a cape, that makes it rather hard for me to take the show seriously!

Is that me wearing the cape?

His name is Dardo Kusto (a shaman), and here is a more normal pic of him:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He is a guy you just can't not love, very nice person.

And he amazes me every time. His level of accuracy is to a level that he shows up a black lighter with 3 skulls - and says that his spirits told him to bring this lighter to the show, and he has no clue why....when in the other room sits a celebrity full of skulls - on this clothes, as tatoos and everywhere

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Is that a guy or a girl?

A guy

Ok, book is released, everybody gets a pancake. Refer to Blog post thread for info...

doomjedi wrote:His name is Dardo Kusto (a shaman), and here is a more normal pic of him

Self proclaimed, I'm guessing?

Self proclaimed? Don't know how ones becomes a shaman and what process it involves. He is from long heritage of shamans in his family.

Normal pic = without a cape

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Skeptic level: Over 9000

i am very interesting in buying the book? any link? is it ebook verson or can i buy hard cover thanks darkwizi