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. NotSA says:

    “In a sense, we are duplicating the process in the Earth that converted algae into oil over the course of millions of years. We’re just doing it …

    Great Lakes might be the new Gulf of Mexico. No drinkable water, you have loads of fuel though. “Given 100 pounds of algae feedstock, the system will yield 53 pounds of “bio-oil” according to the PNNL studies.” Good luck in Ohio.

  2. NotSA says:

    ““Not having to dry the algae is a big win in this process; that cuts the cost a great deal,” said Elliott in a statement. “Then there are bonuses, like being able to extract usable gas from the water and then recycle the remaining water and nutrients to help grow more algae, which further reduces costs.”

    The researchers figure that at current algae prices of several hundred dollars a ton they could make algae-based fuel for the gasoline equivalent of less than $5 per gallon.

    And algae’s only the most viable oil source. The same tricks can oil-ify all sorts of other organic wastes such as manure, municipal sewage, vegetable compost, even fish heads.” Forbes

    You won’t need to deal with Iranians, so that’s worth all the money in the world. Toledo is going to boom.

    • 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?………………………

  3. NotSA says:

    Scientists have long been intrigued by the laundry list of inherent advantages algae boasts over other energy sources. The U.S. Department of Energy, for instance, estimates that scaling up algae fuel production to meet the country’s day-to-day oil consumption would take up about 15,000 square miles of land, roughly the size of a small state like Maryland. In comparison, replacing just the supply of diesel produced with bio-diesel from soybeans would require setting aside half of the nation’s land mass.

    Besides the potential for much higher yields, algae fuel is still cleaner than petroleum, as the marine plants devour carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Agriculturally, algae flourishes in a a wide range of habitats, from ocean territories to wastewater environment. It isn’t hazardous like nuclear fuel, and it is biodegradable, unlike solar panels and other mechanical interventions. It also doesn’t compete with food supplies and, again, is similar enough to petrol that it can be refined just the same using existing facilities.

    Read more:
    Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12!
    Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

    No drilling as well as the time savings. Spirit is science.

    • 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.

  4. NotSA says:

    Another bonus: Because algae can be grown just about anywhere in an enclosed space, it’s being tested at several power plants across the nation as a carbon absorber. Smokestack emissions can be diverted directly into the ponds, feeding the algae while keeping greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.

    Although processing technology for algae fuel — a.k.a. “oilgae” in some environmentalist circles — is improving, it’s still years away from reaching your local gas pump. “It’s feasible; it’s just a question of cost, because no large-scale facilities have been built yet,” Caspari says. Boeing and Air New Zealand recently announced a joint project with a New Zealand company to develop an algae-based jet fuel, while Virgin Atlantic is looking into the technology as part of a biofuels initiative. Watch this space for updates.

    It’s now years away.

    • 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.

  5. NotSA says:

    With the ocean dead it won’t consume any energy. We can all drive SUV’s as big as school buses and haul cheap crap home from big box stores for eternity. In the future water deliveries will take less time with water drones which will cut down on replacing water lines. Fewer pipes and more drones!

    “Hello, My name is Kris. OMIT the price tag on this old video. This is not a business. I don’t want your money. I really WANT you to build one for yourself, and make a million dollars. I’ll just give it to the world for free. This is the world’s first perpetual motion device which gives us free electricity entitled The Resourcer. See below for the instructions on how to build one for yourself. It’s as simple as a lawnmower. I’m still refining it. All this needs is a simple car battery to replace the wall outlet…and it’s it’s own portable universe. It’s equivalent to the Ark of the Covenant. It’s a new lifeform. Once commercialized it shall be about the same as a gasoline generator. I’m hoping to establish it so that The Resourcer will be a standard in the next life. So every home shall have it’s own nuclear reactor. No need for oil, friction, gasoline, pollution, nor a supercollision, NOR IRAN. I designed the Resourcer to allow us to live on this planet when our natural resources run out so we can stay here forever and live happily, without worrying about oil.”

    Call and order a nuclear reactor for the house. You can operate your nuclear reactor with your Skilsaw!

  6. NotSA says:

    One can expand or contract this aspect ratio to get the results one desires. In my instance: a musik video. If you know 2 solid facts, and desire a certain outcome……….YOU CAN DETERMINE THE UNKNOWN. Apply my Grand Unified Theories to any situation, to make your dreams come true.


    I came up with the idea one day by playing with magnets. You know how they repel each other on certain sides. Well I thought about constraining them in a spindle that looks like a gyroscope so that once it is wound up the magnets would collapse into a turn constantly opposing each other. I even thought about those little wooden toys that are wheels with holes in them that you insert pegs to build things like an erector set, or lincoln logs. But how to get it started?”

    The world is hard and dangerous. What we do is rebuild everything using Nerf. The Earth needed Nerf and made us to make it. Nerf is our purpose in life.

  7. NewFormatSux says:

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

    • 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.

  8. 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:


    • 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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.