All religions have their own God(s) and they are all different. And every person who believes in God(s) has a different understanding of who or what it is. Atheists don’t believe in any God, hence the name Atheist. Most of the bristle when someone use the G-word in a way that isn’t demeaning. However – if we are going to have a discussion about God – what are we talking about? What really is the definition of God? Is there a definition of God that makes sense even to Atheists? A definition of God that even scientists can agree on? Turns out – there is!

Science, logic, and reason are actually very new concepts. Not that they didn’t exist before, but that science as a discipline is only a few hundred year old. We in this generation really have not appreciation of what a world before science was like. A world where the Earth was flat, the sky was up, and humans understood very little about the Reality we live in. It was a world where the concept of Reality didn’t exist. But evolution favors the smart and those who understood Reality better tended to survive. It is in our genes to want to know Reality because those who didn’t understand Reality didn’t survive as well.

But Reality is a modern term born in the age of science. Back then they didn’t have a word for Reality – so they call it God. God, it turns out, is just a personification of Reality. And that’s the definition I’m going with here. And I assert that defining God as a personification of Reality is the only definition that makes sense. And personifying Reality in some ways actually makes sense to the meat computers we call our brains.

Now – to be clear, I am not saying that God is real. I know that no matter how many times I say that there will be religious people who read this and insist that “an Atheist is admitting God is real.” That is NOT the case. And there are Atheists who are going to squirm at the idea and not like playing word salad with established definitions. I understand that. So I’m asking everyone to read and understand what I’m talking about here because if you evolve Atheism and Theism forward – there is a common future. And that common future is understanding that God isn’t the invisible cloud being, God is a personification of Reality. And early religion was a very primitive form of science. So I’m not advocating that Christian convert to Atheism, I’m advocating that Christians upgrade to Realism. Reality is the new God. Evidence is our scripture. And Science is how we worship God.

Similarly, Atheism is knowing everything about nothing. In a perfect world the world Atheist becomes meaningless. Atheism is dependent on Reality because without Reality there would be no place for God not to be real in. The very term Atheist is flawed because it keeps God in the center of the religious dialog. Religion is not about God, religion is about your relationship to Reality. Now that relationship to reality might be a hostile relationship, but Reality is the center of the universe and we need to start talking about religion and non-religion in terms of Reality. Believers are believers of Reality. Non-believers are those who reject Reality. It’s not about God(s), it’s about Reality!

Now – the interesting think about looking at God as a personification of Reality is that now a lot of what religions say makes sense. For example, God, by definition is the biggest thing in the universe. God is everywhere, omnipresent. That describes Reality, and only Reality. Nothing can be bigger than God, nothing can be bigger than Reality. God is the sum total of everything that exists. Reality is the sum total of everything that exists. God is Truth. Reality is the very definition of Truth. If you turn your back on God you shall die. If we ignore Reality we will go extinct. Substitute Reality for God and a lot of this makes sense.

And – if you have a different definition of God – like the God of the Bible – or the god of the Koran, that definition is at best obsolete. My God, as a personification of Reality will always be bigger and more real than your God. And if my God is bigger then your God isn’t really God. So, if you believe in God, but your God isn’t a personification of Reality, you’re worshiping the WRONG GOD. If you are going to use the term God correctly in a way that makes logical sense then you have to realize than my God is the one true God. It’s time for you to Upgrade to Reality.

Personification is actually a useful tool because it can make complex questions easier to visualize by our meat computers. For example, let’s personify evolution and call it “Darwin”. Darwin is the personification of one of the fundamental laws of the universe, evolution.

So – what does Darwin want us to do? What is Darwin telling us about who we are, where we have been, and where we are going in the future? When we look at the fossil record we see that an asteroid took out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. So Darwin is asking us, “How’s that space program coming?” If we fail to develop a space program the big asteroid is going to wipe us out too. Why did Elon Musk start SpaceX? Because Darwin told him to do it.

Evolution is about what survives, So one can say Darwin wants you to live. Darwin loves you! We all know that in 500 million years the Sun will be so hot that it boils off the oceans, and all life on this planet will be gone. The only hope that Gaia has to survive is if humanity moves out into space. Darwin wants us to evolve and leave this planet. Darwin is our father. Darwin created us. Darwin wants us to continue to evolve. Darwin wants us to Live in Right Relationship with Reality.

So the Atheists might be asking, why bother with this nonsense? The universe isn’t a person. It doesn’t have purpose. Oh really?

We are the universe. The universe evolved into us. It created us through evolution. Was there a mind there that did it on purpose? No – at least not until now. But things without a mind can still have an apparent will or purpose. For example, we say that a plant “wants to grow towards the light.” But a plant doesn’t have a mind, so it can’t “want” in the way humans can. But it still grows toward the light. Evolution favors the smart, so in the same sense that a plant wants to grow towards the light the universe wants to evolve and create intelligent life. And on this planet we are the life that the universe created. Think of us as the brain cells of the universe. We are the universe’s mind. And when we contemplate the universe, the universe is contemplating itself through us.

Why do Atheists care what other people don’t believe in? What is the meaning of meaning? What does living a good life mean in a world ruled by pure science and logic? Is morality scientifically determinable? How do we objectively determine right and wrong? These are questions that Atheism doesn’t answer; questions that need to be answered. These are religious questions, and we need to be looking at Reality based religion to answer these questions. So the notion that all religions are wrong may apply to all current religions. But what if there is the “one true religion?” The religion that actually gets it right. What would that religion look like? It would be the religion that believes in what is actually real. It would be the religion that puts the pursuit of the understanding of reality as it really is first. It would be the religion that defined the meaning of meaning. It would be a religion that is discovered, not invented. What would such a religion be?

Welcome to Religion 3.0. Welcome to the Evidential Reformation. Religion 1.0 was the authority of elders. When humans invented writing it created Religion 2.0, the authority of scripture. writing allowed the stories to be preserved more accurately than word of mouth. But it solidified an early description of Reality that was state of the art in it’s day. but is obsolete now. Religion 3.0 is the authority of evidence. It is the study of Reality as it really is. The pursuit of the one true God. Science is the new Bible.

So instead of Theists and Atheists arguing about the existence or non-existence of various gods it’s time for both sides to upgrade to Religion 3.0. If you are going to worship God, why not worship the right God? Why not turn to the One True God, understanding God to be a personification of Reality? And if you’re an Atheist, why bother reading the Bible and obsessing over God? It’s kind of creepy. It’s like stalking your ex-wife. And why define who you are and what you believe in terms of something that doesn’t exist?

The Buddhists get it. The Dahlia Lama has ordered his monks to go out and get advanced science degrees and understand reality as it really is. Are you Christians, Muslims, and Jews going to be left behind? Isn’t there only one true path and isn’t that one true path understanding Reality as it really is? Isn’t Reality the very definition of Truth? How can one know Truth without putting Reality first?

My God speaks to me today. We can see him through the Hubble Telescope. He hasn’t been silent for 2000 years. (Or 150 years if you’re Mormon.) My God is alive and evolving through us every day. My God is understood through science. My God is real because it performs what the Bible would call miracles. We can heal the sick. We can raise people from the dead. We can fly onto the heavens in a flaming chariot. It’s called an airplane. We can take the heart out of one person and put it in another. And when my God speaks he says the same thing to everyone. So my God passed the “God Test”. Does yours? If not – you’re worshiping the wrong God.

Reverend Reality – Micheal Dowd- TedX Talk

Reality Reconciles Science and Religion



  1. tdkyo says:

    The joke about the current discussion about God is that, most of these popular arguments (against, for) have been well discussed already hundreds of years ago. If people could just pick up a primary source philosophical work (Enlightenment period is quite accessible), then they would be exposed to some good, rich discussion on the topic (and not some crap flame war blah blahs~ on the Internets).

    Also, David Hume’s writing is over powered in terms of beauty, while Kant is… woah man.

    • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

      Kool.

      People may be a-theist, but that doesn’t mean that Atheism is not a religion.

      Atheism is in fact a legitimate religion, and its tenet must be protected by law just like any other religion.

      Meaning: if your religion forbids me from buying batteries on Sunday, and my religion forbids me from paying homage you the tenets of your religion, then my religion trumps your religion when it comes to my conduct. So sod off!

      Perkel, tldr.

      • Thomas says:

        > Atheism is in fact a legitimate
        > religion, and its tenet must
        > be protected by law just like
        > any other religion.

        No. Atheism is a lack of religion which requires legal protection of that freedom just like a religion.

  2. Defining God to be a mere personification of reality and preaching that definition is the silly preoccupation of chasing one’s own tail.

    For a serious definition of God consider article 1 of the Millerites, circa 2014:

    “God is the most thrilling Thing in the universe. He is the greatest being that could exist without contradiction with maximally infinite divine attributes. Thus, it’s inconceivable that God could be more wonderful, more holy, more righteous, more loving, more merciful, more gracious, more powerful, more knowledgeable, more infallible, etc. etc. than He already is.”
    http://everythingimportant.org/Millerites

    • Tim says:

      “”more wonderful, more holy, more righteous, more loving, more merciful, more gracious, more powerful, more knowledgeable, more infallible, etc. etc. than He already is.”

      I’m going to suggest that these guys adapt blatently infringe upon your words…

      https://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_WTBkj8gFfI#t=241

      **Here’s boy bands, here’s Mackers, here’s Britney, here’s cola.
      Here’s pizza, here’s TV, here’s some rock and some roller.
      Watch commercials, more commercials, watch Jerry, not Oprah.
      Buy a better life from the comfort of your sofa. Here’s popcorn, here’s magazines, here’s milkshakes, here’s blue jeans. Here’s padded bras, here’s armpit wax, here’s football shirts, here’s baseball caps. Here’s live talk-shows, here’s video games, here’s cola-lite, here’s ten more lanes. Here’s filter-tips, here’s collagen lips, here’s all-night malls, here’s plastic hips (we want your soul).

      Your cash, your house, your phone, your life (we want your soul).

  3. howardg says:

    I have started listening to some theorists that follow the thread from the Judean “Old Testament” through to the adoption of Christianity by the Eastern Roman Empire through the common law of England through to the Declaration of Independance and the Articles of Confederation and the current U.S. constitution. The traditions explain the “natural law” elements like the right and responsibility to defend yourself. This is true whether you’re an 5th grader in the schoolyard or a moose. The law codifies the human pecking order through defining who is free to do what (a Roman citizen was free if they pledged themselves to Rome) or a bondsman or a slave. This continues today: prisoners working in a prison labor shop are slaves. Some, depending on their sentences (three strikes – you’re in forever!) will never be free. Most of us are free to a limited extent. Mostly we have a license to do this or that, like get married or drive a car, or own property, based on fees and taxes. This is more important to most people than whether God is a personification of the principles governing electricity. One has to be very clever and well-educated to operate at the highest levels of freedom, aka “license.” Praise Jesus!

  4. NewFormatSux says:

    Nope, that’s not enough to get bobbo posting again.

  5. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

    Where is that nice guy who is religious who doesn’t understand when I say: the main thing wrong with religion is that it makes your think about things religiously?

    Meaning in black and white terms…. without subtlety or allowing for ambiguity.

    MARC==this is what you do. Why for f*ck sake would you even want to suggest there is only one way to think about something? anything?? much less “god.”

    Just plain silly. ….. A very religious way of looking at the world, regardless of how else you look at the world.

    Take any definition of anything and analysis THAT. Just way too obviously argumenative to say that god is a personification of reality. Indeed, seems to me more objectively true that God is a personification of our unreal hopes and dreams and exactly NOT of reality at all? But why argue????? Take each definition in turn:

    analyse, compare and contrast, weight and value the elements, define your terms, make your experiments, rinse and repeat.

    STOP THE SOOTH SAYING. Thus sayeth the bobbo.

    Just because it irks me so and VIOLATES one of my chief nom de flames: “But evolution favors the smart and those who understood Reality better tended to survive.” /// Total Bullshit. By definition and operation. Evolution does not favor anything. How many times must it be stated that evolution is “non-directional.” Evolution is the RESULT of surviving and reproducing. You may think being smart is favored by evolution…the evidence is: hoomans for 2 Million Years, the Jellyfish for 3 Billion Years. Come AGW: hoomans no more—the jelly on a roll.

    I didn’t read the whole post. It might not be all crap.

    • Marc Perkel says:

      I didn’t say that God was necessary. I just say, or at least tried to say, that if you are going to use the G-word – use it correctly.

      I’m just looking at this as an upgrade path.

      But Atheism needs to be upgraded too because Atheism is about God – not about Reality.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

        Oh Crap Marc—YOU are the very Debil himself!!

        With such a calm yet still contesting response, I will now have to read the rest of your post…… and probably the video as well.

        Its weird though….. you correctly state “A” theism is about no belief in god, and then say just the opposite. Do you even recognize when you are thinking religiously? ….. you know….. facts and earlier admissions no bar to Chanting the Dogma?

        “I’ll be back.”

        • Marc Perkel says:

          Yes – I’m advocating for Reality based religion. There is one true religion and that is reality based.

          • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

            Only as it might clear up some ambiguities–what is added to your mantra by calling advocacy of Reality …a Religion? IOW–if you just say Science is the Study of Reality, what if anything is lost by its not being thought of as a Religion?

            …..or……does the equation actually only go the other way? As in, you are not trying to affect Science or Reality at all but rather are only wanting to change the nature of “religion.”

            Do you see any distinctions in the above? I do. But I can’t be sure you/we/me and you are connecting on exactly or even near to what is being talked about.

            In general: reality is about what “is”==what can be proven whether you believe it or not, aka science.

            In general: religion is about what stands outside of what “is”==cannot be proven and can only be believed usually because of personal revelation, aka by faith and NOT science or reality.

            I suppose you see some benefit to combining oil and water….. but you have to keep shaking because the two concepts don’t mix.

            Now…. off to read the post even though All In and Democracy Now are both on. Can I triple task….by faith or by science?

            My Magic 8 Ball says: Not Today.

  6. Michael Dowd says:

    Marc, what a wonderful (and prophetic) essay! (And thanks for including my TEDx talk at the end.)

    Together in the Great Work,
    Celebrating Reality,

    ~ Michael

  7. pedro says:

    Simply put: yes.

    Although, more than reality, atheist are looking at politics or, more precisely, at political parties as their religion.

  8. From the Desk of GOD! says:

    I started to read with an anticipation of learning from a different point of view of what seems to be a new kind of thought revolution. But once I got to the following part, I KNEW the author was full of baseless CRAP! And I read no further.

    … But evolution favors the smart and those who understood Reality better tended to survive. (Really?!) It is in our genes to want to know Reality (you mean jeans {PANTS}, I’m sure) because those who didn’t understand Reality didn’t survive as well.

    Spoken like a true (religious) IDIOT concluding that “smart” has anything to do with evolution, survival, or even reality. It’s more like LUCK! Just for starters, where’s the “smart” in common old earthworms? They live in a “real” world and even thrive in it, don’t they? Earthworms aren’t exactly “smart” yet they have evolved (slightly).

    Now take a good look at these humans. Just look at these so called “smart” successful people walking into manholes, off cliffs, into water fountains, or even into TRAFFIC! I won’t bore you with the obvious shortcoming humans have like war! These humans are like zombies whenever a glowing screen is dangled in front of them. They even do these self destructive things with eyes wide open, clear minded and everything based on nothing but unfounded beliefs too. And I don’t exactly see worms or anything else in nature as preoccupied with their own creations quite like humans are. Not for very long, at least.

    Or maybe you mean to say that “reality” is now replacing traditional religions and the usual emotional experiences that can be felt in those settings. But just how this relates to a complete absence of belief is a bit troubling. Because atheism isn’t a belief! Atheism is an absence of belief. So how anyone can conclude that “real” scientific observation methods combined with an absence of belief is in itself a belief — that does peg the old bullshit meter. And I would expect that kind of bullshit logic to come from someone either in or close to a religion too.

    Here’s a bit of reality for ya: anything that causes more deaths than births is the very ingredient needed for EXTINCTION! And as far as the other planets creatures is concerned, this ingredient may very well be humans! I’m not so sure that smart phones which are known to cause a momentary distraction that sometimes leads to death is going to be the single cause of human extinction, but it is hard to ignore when you also throw in other factors like social unrest (war), ignorance of one’s environment, and plain old avoidable diseases. It’s hard to ignore the one common factor here — humanities arrogant refusal to accept reality. So is that “smart”? I say, no.

    But then there are those who would argue that mankind is at the top of the intelligence scale. And that may be true as far as technology is concerned. Humans can indeed master their own environment to a degree never before seen in history (that we know of). Though it is hard to ignore PLANET EARTH as one’s own “environment.” Therefore, I say humans are really pretty damned stupid when they pollute the very environment that sustains them. Shitting where one must live is pretty damned UN-intelligent, if you ask me.

    Now, try taking a look at a non human species like whales. Just consider how whales have managed to survive in harmony with each other and with their environment. Consider how whales vocally communicate, congregate, hunt, and even how they’ve remained relatively unchanged over the last few hundred thousand years. There are even “killer” whales which have occasionally eaten humans too. But all humans ever seem offer is their ability to breed and multiply — just like a VIRUS or just like FOOD!

    And yet, the argument always seems to come down to how humans are “smart” and how they know how/when to build/seek shelter and when/what to eat or at least that they do it better than any other species. And all I can say to that is, bullshit! Anyone who thinks humans are smart is paradoxically ignoring reality. The evidence couldn’t be any more clear. The human species is pretty damned stupid! And it all starts with an overabundance of ARROGANCE and a willingness to accept complete baseless bullshit that they THINK is real.

    Fact is, humans are just like any other mammal when it comes to true survival. And the only reason humans are still on planet earth is simply due to luck and the ability for humans to multiply and cultivate. It has nothing to do with god or some new realization or anything else that humans claim they understand. One only needs to look at the human leaders to see just how utterly confused they all are and how utterly out of touch with reality they have become.

    ———-
    Final note from GOD (if you’re into that sort of thing):

    Humans have only themselves to blame if they don’t like the way things are going. I also don’t expect very many of them to do anything positive towards their collective benefit either. Individually, yes! But not collectively. Few do. And it seems that the majority will always allow their own arrogant beliefs get in the way with proven facts and logic especially when finding food and shelter has been replaced with finding someone to fuck! It may be asking too much of them to wake up to reality when the weakest of them is not weak in body. What a failure any deity must admit when the only real thing any religion has ever tried to teach them is the need to love — not necessarily the need to MAKE love — and yet, somehow still failed.

    • Tim says:

      But, you made them, Oh Lord.. In Your image, Lord. You are infallible,…, You must have missed something else Your argument is teetering on the invalid side of being somewhat invalid.

  9. dusanmal says:

    Utter nonsense from people who do not understand the fundamental issue of Religion, any religion. Not Religiosity (which atheists happily, sometimes ignorantly and sometimes intentionally confuse)
    “…Is there a definition of God that makes sense even to Atheists? A definition of God that even scientists can agree on?…” – is not found in article above, it is as good as Church (of any kind) defining what Science is by decision of people who lack any Scientific education…
    Now, here is Religion/God definition that Science should agree upon: Religion is about transcendental, about items that can’t be measured never mind rationally explained. God/Gods is/are total comprehension of rational and transcendental that exists. “I am” of both rational and transcendental.
    Answer to philosophical question that defines you as religious or non-religious person: is there anything transcendental, something that exists but we can’t see or explain?
    Side note: even from scientific viewpoint which is absolutely rejecting transcendental, transcendental according to current knowledge is PLAUSIBLE. Ex. what was before big bang? Even scientific definition of that is impossible, because nor matter nor energy nor time nor space NOT EVEN KNOWN PHYSICAL LAWS have existed beyond. Nor can we see and measure initial conditions, never mind “before”. Could there be something prior – science can’t answer any way. Possibility of transcendental by definition

    • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

      Two non-overlapping Magisteria huh?

      Well….. if the religious understood the fundamental nature of Religion as you express it…….no body would care.

      But we all do.

      …………………………thats a clue.

  10. John Andrews says:

    All this applies only if there IS a god! Oh, there is more…

  11. bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

    Are Atheists ripping off God by defining God as a personification of Reality? /// No.
    xxxxxxxxxxx
    All religions have their own God(s) and they are all different. /// No. Many religions are tenet based without any Supreme Beings. They are called “Non Theistic Religions.” EG–Buddism.

    And every person who believes in God(s) has a different understanding of who or what it is. /// Is that because every person is a snowflake, or because every god is?

    Atheists don’t believe in any God, hence the name Atheist. /// Yes.

    Most of the bristle when someone use the G-word in a way that isn’t demeaning. However – if we are going to have a discussion about God – what are we talking about? What really is the definition of God? Is there a definition of God that makes sense even to Atheists? A definition of God that even scientists can agree on? Turns out – there is! /// Per my last poser to you, if scientists agree on a definition of god, its probably of no interest to the traditionally theistic religions.

    Science, logic, and reason are actually very new concepts. Not that they didn’t exist before, but that science as a discipline is only a few hundred year old. We in this generation really have not appreciation of what a world before science was like. A world where the Earth was flat, the sky was up, and humans understood very little about the Reality we live in./// Logic and reason came with the Greeks 2500 years ago. A study of early civilizations shows that the central concerns of man have changed little if at all. Toys are but a distraction. Are you getting laid or not? ((not porn… that’s an oblique reference to Evolution!)

    It was a world where the concept of Reality didn’t exist. // Totally wrong. Your Greek history is weak if not non existant. Typical American.

    But evolution favors the smart and those who understood /// No it doesn’t…. or that is yet to be proven. Evolution does not favor any idea or concept. Its simply the result of those who manage to breed.

    Reality better tended to survive. It is in our genes to want to know Reality because those who didn’t understand Reality didn’t survive as well. /// Blather.

    But Reality is a modern term born in the age of science. Back then they didn’t have a word for Reality – /// Holy Crap. C’mon==you’re kidding right? The Nature of Reality, Truth is all Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle ever thought, taught, lectured, wrote about. The Socratic Method? Aristotelian Logic? The very foundation/flowering of Western Civilization forever set in our language? Where ya been? (So jejune I tells ya!)

    so they call it God. God, it turns out, is just a personification of Reality. And that’s the definition I’m going with here. And I assert that defining God as a personification of Reality is the only definition that makes sense. ///…ok…I take that as defining science with religious imagery… and the disagreements will come with any application of the definition.

    And personifying Reality in some ways actually makes sense to the meat computers we call our brains. /// So what? Lots of “sense” is wrong. Its what creates and maintains traditional religion: aka the personification of human hopes and fears.

    Now – to be clear, I am not saying that God is real. I know that no matter how many times I say that there will be religious people who read this and insist that “an Atheist is admitting God is real.” That is NOT the case. And there are Atheists who are going to squirm at the idea and not like playing word salad with established definitions. /// So..you do see the issue the same way I do. Hmmm, if word salad there be, I wonder what the sauce is?

    I understand that. So I’m asking everyone to read and understand what I’m talking about here because if you evolve Atheism and Theism forward – there is a common future. And that common future is understanding that God isn’t the invisible cloud being, God is a personification of Reality. And early religion was a very primitive form of science. So I’m not advocating that Christian convert to Atheism, I’m advocating that Christians upgrade to Realism. Reality is the new God. Evidence is our scripture. And Science is how we worship God. /// This is all a definitional “if/then” analysis. Subject to all inherent errors.

    Similarly, Atheism is knowing everything about nothing. In a perfect world the world Atheist becomes meaningless. Atheism is dependent on Reality because without Reality there would be no place for God not to be real in. The very term Atheist is flawed because it keeps God in the center of the religious dialog. Religion is not about God, religion is about your relationship to Reality. Now that relationship to reality might be a hostile relationship, but Reality is the center of the universe and we need to start talking about religion and non-religion in terms of Reality. Believers are believers of Reality. Non-believers are those who reject Reality. It’s not about God(s), it’s about Reality! /// Heavy into word salad. You are making unstated/assumed relationships between words. When you DEFINE atheist as someone who believes in no Gods, how do you jump to “knowing everything about nothing?” That’s foolish.

    Now – the interesting think about looking at God as a personification of Reality is that now a lot of what religions say makes sense. For example, God, by definition is the biggest thing in the universe. God is everywhere, omnipresent. That describes Reality, and only Reality. Nothing can be bigger than God, nothing can be bigger than Reality. God is the sum total of everything that exists. Reality is the sum total of everything that exists. God is Truth. Reality is the very definition of Truth. If you turn your back on God you shall die. If we ignore Reality we will go extinct. Substitute Reality for God and a lot of this makes sense. /// Yep, that’s long been called pantheism, Spinozas God as Nature. …….yawn!… except there is no personification there in this standard definition. With personification comes a personally intervening god. If God is everything, then there is a corruption when everything is personified….. the personification is “something” else.

    And – if you have a different definition of God – like the God of the Bible – or the god of the Koran, that definition is at best obsolete. /// Yeah…. So those religious types REJECT your definition. What has been gained?

    My God, as a personification of Reality will always be bigger and more real than your God. // No. The personal God of the Bible is “outside” of time and space (aka Reality) and is the author of same. More than “everything” as you conceive it.

    And if my God is bigger then your God isn’t really God. /// and vice versa…. So as defined, you and your reality… lose.

    So, if you believe in God, but your God isn’t a personification of Reality, you’re worshiping the WRONG GOD. If you are going to use the term God correctly in a way that makes logical sense then you have to realize than my God is the one true God. It’s time for you to Upgrade to Reality. /// but my god stands outside of and “above” logical sense. HE cannot be limited by your notions of reality.

    Personification is actually a useful tool because it can make complex questions easier to visualize by our meat computers. For example, let’s personify evolution and call it “Darwin”. Darwin is the personification of one of the fundamental laws of the universe, evolution. //// Ummmmm….. ok?

    So – what does Darwin want us to do? What is Darwin telling us about who we are, where we have been, and where we are going in the future? When we look at the fossil record we see that an asteroid took out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. So Darwin is asking us, “How’s that space program coming?” If we fail to develop a space program the big asteroid is going to wipe us out too. Why did Elon Musk start SpaceX? Because Darwin told him to do it. /// When did Darwin say all that? You are fibbing….. as most religious thinking people do.

    Evolution is about what survives, /// yes. That means so much more than you have voiced so wrongly above.

    So one can say Darwin wants you to live. Darwin loves you! /// Gibberish.

    We all know that in 500 million years the Sun will be so hot that it boils off the oceans, and all life on this planet will be gone. /// I think its longer than that, but why quibble when “all” your “facts” are wrong?

    The only hope that Gaia has to survive is if humanity moves out into space. /// Gaia is a living earth… in balances with whatever forces are active….. with or without hoomans.

    Darwin wants us to evolve and leave this planet. Darwin is our father. Darwin created us. Darwin wants us to continue to evolve. Darwin wants us to Live in Right Relationship with Reality. /// When did Darwin say that?

    So the Atheists might be asking, why bother with this nonsense? The universe isn’t a person. It doesn’t have purpose. Oh really? /// Correct.

    We are the universe. The universe evolved into us. It created us through evolution. Was there a mind there that did it on purpose? No – at least not until now. But things without a mind can still have an apparent will or purpose. For example, we say that a plant “wants to grow towards the light.” But a plant doesn’t have a mind, so it can’t “want” in the way humans can. /// No… “we” don’t say that…. Only you say that. Kinda the Personification of the Scientifically and History illiterate in a phototrophic manner of speaking.

    But it still grows toward the light. Evolution favors the smart, so in the same sense that a plant wants to grow towards the light the universe wants to evolve and create intelligent life. /// Ha, ha. Yeah…. Its just like that.

    And on this planet we are the life that the universe created. Think of us as the brain cells of the universe. We are the universe’s mind. And when we contemplate the universe, the universe is contemplating itself through us. /// We also shit. Maybe that is what the Universe thinks?

    Why do Atheists care what other people don’t believe in? /// We don’t except when the coerce our words, thoughts, and deeds to doing what they want in the name of their morals and gods desires.

    What is the meaning of meaning? What does living a good life mean in a world ruled by pure science and logic? Is morality scientifically determinable? How do we objectively determine right and wrong? These are questions that Atheism doesn’t answer; questions that need to be answered. These are religious questions, and we need to be looking at Reality based religion to answer these questions. So the notion that all religions are wrong may apply to all current religions. But what if there is the “one true religion?” The religion that actually gets it right. What would that religion look like? It would be the religion that believes in what is actually real. It would be the religion that puts the pursuit of the understanding of reality as it really is first. It would be the religion that defined the meaning of meaning. It would be a religion that is discovered, not invented. What would such a religion be? /// Gibberish. Only the spaghetti Lord could un-ravioli such a mess.

    I can’t go on.

    • Egon Ruuda says:

      WOW! Whilst i disagree with you fervently on economic matters, you really stepped it up a knotch and was SPOT ON!

      Kudos to you good sir.

      • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

        Kudos back to you Egon. Recognize my specific analytic definitional approach to all issues is the same: what works, and what doesn’t all to whatever end goal is desired.

        I challenge you to challenge me on my errant economic matters. When you prove me wrong, I will inch forward and be a better man.

        • Egon Ruuda says:

          Perhaps i am the errant one, but i see government in general as a unnecessary evil at best. And thus i do not advocate for interventionism in the economy as you have done in the past. (At least that is how i remember it from previous interactions)

          • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

            So…. your problem isn’t really with “me” but rather with reality? Nice segue from the OP……..

            What do you propose to replace gubment as you conceive of things?

            Do you agree or not than from a fact of the matter viewpoint, once you have two or more people within ear shot of one another, you’ve got gubment?

            Or did you just mistype by adding “un” to necessary. Extreme to the Max…everyone knows gubment is a necessary evil…. the only debate being who gets screwed more than anyone else.

          • Tim says:

            You don’t have government now, bobbo. You have imposters feigning to be your loving government.

            You are a self-loathing anarchist.

    • pedro says:

      And here’s a perfect example of electronic waste presented by bobbo, doing all that’s necessary to win the “It’s All About Me” Award

    • Verbose - Thy name is bobboo says:

      “I can’t go on”

      If only.

      • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

        Good one.

        I thought about forcing my self to the end. But life is about pleasure, don’t you agree?

  12. mickray says:

    Once the body drops, one is no more. Now, shut up slave…

  13. pedro says:

    Now that I think about it, there’s this new religion going around called TED

  14. Egon Ruuda says:

    1. Most people never though the world was flat. Erasthones wrote about the circumfrance of the earth long before christianity.

    2. Allthough “Atheist” means no “god” it is widely accepted that it also means “no supernatural” Thus ANY supernatural definition of existance is void and fails.

    3. Atheism is not lack of belief or disbelief. it the default position of all humans that: “More proof needed” and in case of religion, NOTHING is offered.

    Read the book “Against the gods” by Stefan Molineux (also available for free as audio book on his website.

    • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

      Egon Ruuda says:
      8/2/2014 at 5:48 am

      1. Most people never though the world was flat. Erasthones wrote about the circumfrance of the earth long before christianity. /// One greek guy that only 400 greeks knew about is not “most” people.

      2. Allthough “Atheist” means no “god” it is widely accepted that it also means “no supernatural” Thus ANY supernatural definition of existance is void and fails. /// Better: It is widely accepted that any proposition must be supported by facts confirmable by others and not taken on faith.

      3. Atheism is not lack of belief or disbelief. it the default position of all humans that: “More proof needed” and in case of religion, NOTHING is offered. /// Better: “Some proof is needed…or at least a logical non self conflicting context.”

      Read the book “Against the gods” by Stefan Molineux (also available for free as audio book on his website. /// If you loved Stefan Molineux, his book, or ideas… you would link to his site. I take it, your admiration falls short of love.

  15. Glenn E. says:

    Last time I checked, Darwin was dead. And he wasn’t, or hasn’t been resurrected from the dead. Though I’m sure that atheists like to “believe” that he has. Say that Darwin wants us to live, and Darwin wants us to build asteroid hunter/killers, is utter BS. And only proves just how desperate scientists are for some of that sweet federal tax money. By justifying their most costly of sciences, space exploration. As the ultimate savior of all of mankind. Ever since Galileo fought the established Church, over whose version of the solar system was right. Space sciences have been adopting religious trapping and terms, to sell their fields as vital to human survival. The Church has its “lake of fire” retribution (hell). Science has it “red giant” ending of the world. The Church has its “fire and brimstone fall from above”. Science has its “asteroids and meteors”. The Church had its biblical flood. Science has its “flooding by melting icebergs”. And the parallels go on. Science also knows a good doom and gloom story, when it needs to raise money. And has no problem borrowing all the same ones that religions have used. Funny thing is, Science has yet to come up with anything original. They just dust off some religious prognostication of doom. And fancy it up a bit with scientific terms.

    The main problem I have with Science, claiming its idea of God is bigger than mine, so I must upgrade. Is that the concept of truth gets neatly avoided. God is truth. I doubt anyone but atheists, believe that science is always truthful. Nor is science infallible and all knowing. Not as long as human beings have anything to do with it. Science will be bent and corrupted to serve whatever political and economic agenda, comes along.

    The US Space Program wasn’t started to save mankind from extinction by falling rocks. It was started, to give defense contractors a means to profit from, during the lean, non world war years. And religion was the initial public excuse for it. The US had to beat the Russians, into space. Because the US was a God fearing nation. And the Russians were a bunch of Atheists. Funny how that got turned around, after the Apollo moon missions.

    Soon as we beat the Russians to the moon. Science stepped in and declared future missions were only about discovering the origin of the moon (because there was no God who created it). And the search for signs of life on other worlds (because that might disprove the Bible). All at taxpayers’ expense, of course. No one explained why any of this was so vital to the nation. And anytime there was the slightest hint of funding cutbacks. The same excuse immediately arose. “Well aerospace/defense corporations need the dough, so they’ll be around for WW3, when we need them to build more weapons. It’s been a subsidy gimmick, dressed up as either pseudo-religion (politics) or science (anti-religion). Now it’s crawling back to pseudo-religion, claiming it can save the world from fiery destruction.

    But I don’t see any scientists, or their host corporations, taking a vow of poverty, to get the job done. No, they’ll all profit quite handsomely, right up until (if ever) the big unstoppable rock falls on the earth, and wipes us all out. Because I don’t think any space scientists believe that anything can be done to stop the inevitable destruction of earth. So they’re just going to exploit the fear of it, in order to live off the tax funding bonanza. And they’re oh so jealous, of all the spare funds that Religions are getting, from the people. That they could be getting. That it has become part of their mission, to rip on Religion any way they can, to change that situation.

    Getting an upgraded God, means “hand over your money to the sciences, and not to fix buildings with stained glass windows”.

    • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

      IMO–better writing than Marc’s, but the same kind of shit: ascribing to “science” what science never does. That actually is, to borrow a phrase, a personification of science.

      Science doesn’t believe or advocate anything. People do. Science is a method. Its the best method we have to find the truth. Truth defined as the current best explanation we have of anything.

      Silly to blather otherwise.

  16. Sometimes the man leading from behind isn't pointing with his hand says:

    Seems like a an impossible use of “personification” representing reality (which exists) as a person (who doesn’t exist nor even acts like a person).

    And as it posits God as a mere mental construct, I hardly see how you have advanced the discussion. Those who believe in God who created reality will see your “personification” as just another denial of God’s existence.

  17. IM75 says:

    Nice try, Marc, but any definition of God that doesn’t say anything about Spirit, has got it wrong. Guaranteed.

    • Marc Perkel says:

      What’s a Spirit?

      • IM75 says:

        “a spirit” is not what I said. I said, “Spirit”. Look it up. For most of us it’s not that difficult to grok.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          You have to admit the Holy Ghost is about as mind smacking as you can get. Was that spirit one of the defeated gods or just the fevered imaginings of the Lord Himself?

          Sad to think about that. That God has no imagination…… because he KNOWS everything.

          Ha, ha.

          silly hoomans. Making gods you cant lift.

        • Marc Perkel says:

          I don’t believe in gjosts. woooooo

  18. NewFormatSux says:

    Atheists worship Obama and Beyonce.

    • pedro says:

      You have to explain it a bit more. Otherwise, bobbo won’t get it

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas unless the words are religious in context which is just a form of brain rot says:

        Consistent with this OP…. just made up BS that isn’t true and no one says.

        Straw Men and red herrings….the only ideas teabaggers deal with.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        You were right. More explanation needed for bobbo.

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas unless the words are religious in context which is just a form of brain rot says:

          Yes…. I should have added…. ” and given they can only argue about Straw Men, red herrings, and completely dog whistle talking points…. the ONLY people they can talk to …

          …..are other teabaggers.

          Ha, ha. Sucks to be you.

  19. Tim says:

    As an impartial observer, I just wanted to bigotidly observe that it looks like Dowd touched Marc where he thought he did not want to be touched but later met a squirrel. — please stop that, Micheal; You’re still culpable in the eyes of Falwell…

    Less onerous is selling seeds, in the long run… just sayin’, dude…

  20. Sometimes the man leading from behind isn't pointing with his hand says:

    Personally I’ve suspected both J. Dvorak and A. Curry are personified, notice not a word from either since mid June, about the time of the appearance of Marc’s.

    What’s the inside track on that? Inquiring minds want to know.

  21. Let Me, Alone says:

    SON: “I’m not sure there is a GOD.”
    MOM: “Of course there is! Morty, tell them there is a GOD!”
    FATHER: “How should I know? I don’t even know how the toaster works.”

  22. NewFormatSux says:

    By your deeds shall you know them. Atheist reporters show no ability to properly report on Israel vs Hamas.

    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/08/eyeless-in-gaza-40-questions-for-the-media.php

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      SUnF==maybe I read too quickly, but besides being totally off the point, what is your point?

      Israel vs Hamas would be an interesting thread.

      All the BS… so thick, you can walk on it.

      What is the limit of reasonableness in killing realatively less guilty Gazans to get at the Terrorist Gubment they elected.

      Would that be an absolute number, or a ratio without being imaginary or irrational?

      Kill them all. Let Allah clean his own mess.

  23. Michael Grosberg says:

    Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
    A: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t mean it is one.

    Your re-definition of the word God is, I’m afraid, utter bullshit. You don’t get to redefine words just to achieve some end (which I don’t really understand). Word derive their meaning from common perception, and no one person gets to change that.

    What is God? The minimal definition of the Judeo-christian-islamic God is this:
    *God is incorporeal (not made of atoms, not a super-computer or an advanced alien)
    *God created the material universe
    *God is intelligent, self-determining and self-conscious (not a natural/mindless process like the Dharma in Buddhism)

    That is what the average believer thinks of when they speak of God. You can quibble about its shape, abilities or goodness, or whether he only set the universe in motion or created humnity specifically. but those qualities must be in any definition, otherwise it’s not God you’re talking about. God as a personification of nature is an old idea (Spinoza, 17th century, and probably some Greek and Indian thinkers much earlier) but it is simply not how it’s perceived by the vast majority of believers.

    • Tim says:

      *beard

    • NewFormatSux says:

      They are trying to redefine marriage to what it is not.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      MG–you simply don’t understand language.

      The dog would have 5 legs, one different from the other.

      You will see this plainly if you call legs: appendages.

      How you define a concept IS what it is. Its what you do thereafter that counts.

      Do you really think there aren’t 50 different types of snow just because Anglos only have one word for it? 4 or 5 if you don’t live in Sunny Climes?

  24. Scott M. says:

    “However – if we are going to have a discussion about God – what are we talking about?”

    The premise is flawed. Atheists feel no need to discuss God. Only those are currently “on God” (used in the same way as “on heroin” or “on antidepressants”) feel the need to discuss God. It is a way of reassuring themselves that they are not irrational. It reinforces the lie and, if but for a short time, gives them comfort.

    The fop in the video spins the attractive fiction and draws undue attention to himself by his use of the word “God”. It is nothing more than a performance.

    Remember that the sociopaths who invented religion depended on the same method. *Be* the person who uses the word “God” (or whatever other name suits). *Use* the attention which speaking about (and eventually for) the false deity creates to advance yourself (either socially or monetarily – or preferably both). Recruit the weak of mind to follow the false deity *through* *you*. Encourage the fanatics. Create a ranking structure which rewards the “believers”. Damn those who oppose you (and your message). Take no responsibility for the acts of your rabid followers as they are simply obeying your deity’s instructions…even though they only heard what the deity wanted *through* *you*. Sociopaths are not big on accountability don’tcha know.

    No, there is no reason for religion to pollute science.

  25. HUGSaLOT says:

    Atheist doesn’t mean “no belief in god” the word breaks down as “A” = Without and “Theist” = Entity (or god). The literal meaning of the word is “without god” Believing is not apart of what this word means. You can technically believe there is a god, but live your life WITHOUT a God.

    • Thomas says:

      > Atheist doesn’t mean
      > “no belief in god” the word
      > breaks down as “A” = Without
      > and “Theist” = Entity (or god).

      I’ve always translated atheist as “not theist”. A theist isn’t an entity or god; it is a person that possesses a belief in a god.

      The way I’ve explained it to people is that we can divide the world into two groups. In one group are theists which possess a belief in a god and the other group is “everybody else”. The latter consists of those that deny the existence of god, those that reject the claim of the existence of a god (but do not necessary go so far as affirm the negative), those that do not know, and those we cannot interrogate such as infants, people in comas and anyone else lacking the ability to confirm their belief in a god or gods. Thus, the “everybody else” group might be called the “not in the theist group” or “not theist” or atheist for short.

  26. bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

    Not Seriously Allegorical –one of your better posts. Tangential but on the way to the ballpark.

    Is that word play at the end? Pooh is not real…just another made up character.

    The homophone “poo” is real, but totally inconsistent with the theme and take of your post.

    So…….one way or the other……………..

  27. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas unless the words are religious in context which is just a form of brain rot says:

    Who talked about “the oceanic feeling of oneness”?

    Still on topic, spiritualism is not personified but is more about nature whereas The Spirit is one of the three manifestations of God, whereas the Spirit World is all about dead people.

    Spirit–lots of different meanings.

  28. Cole Sear says:

    i smell dead people

  29. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas unless the words are religious in context which is just a form of brain rot says:

    Nice link to Forbes above. A quick review of the math says the gas cost would be much less…. so even now…. Forbes wants to bake in a HUGE profit margin! (figures don’t it?)

    I’d think there would still be benefits in gene manipulation to get algae with more oil or oil that can be processed more cheaply. It will come.

    “Then you send it, continuously, down a long tube that holds the algae at 660 degrees Fahrenheit and 3,000 psi for 30 minutes while stirring it.” /// I’m no engineer..but I’d think the cost of developing/containing pressure is near zero…. so the “cost” is in developing the 660 degrees? Solar furnace seems like a natural, creating excess during the day, to be burned at night, 24 hour “free” production.

    I wonder why we aren’t doing it?………………………

  30. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas unless the words are religious in context which is just a form of brain rot says:

    Yes, the Smithsonian article repeats the heart of Forbes and then adds some good details

    ……..Like: “an analysis has shown that implementing this technique on a wider scale may allow companies to sell biofuel commercially for as low as two dollars a gallon.”

    I suggest we JUMP on this technology like a MOONSHOT to our future……….and start by putting FORBES in jail.

    …………………………..Its where the CRIMINALLY RICH need to be if we are going to save the planet.

  31. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas unless the words are religious in context which is just a form of brain rot says:

    You should make it clear to the dear readers that you are talking about two different methods of making bio oil.

    Your first two links are about using heat and pressure on just about any high carbon source, while your third link is about bio-engineering specific algae and processing without heat and pressure ( I think?) or maybe not as the article says the heat and pressure processing was “cheap” with the expense being in growing the algae.

    I wonder if the process can turn jelly fish into oil too? We gotta figure out pretty quick how to get energy out of a dead ocean.