Some reasons for believing in God.

[txaslftist]

I believe that there is a God. There are many reasons I believe this, and many of them stem from my upbringing and my formative years, and what I was taught as a child. For purposes of this post, I will leave those reasons aside and concentrate on why, as a liberal and a believer in non-violence, I come to the conclusion that there is a God.

The strongest evidence I have for the existence of God is the belief of others and the impact that belief had upon their lives and the lives of those around them.

Although I am a Christian by nomenclature, the first example I would choose for the existence of God is Ghandi. Ghandi was a Hindu, and accepted the existence of both God and Satan. He stated that Christ's sermon on the mount was such a beautiful statement of faith that it made him weep. He fasted and prayed daily. He was the author of nonviolent resistance and the best example of its utility, but placed all the credit for his successes in the hands of God. I know of no example of an atheist who had such a benign impact on the world, although there are many examples of spiritual men who did have such an impact. He acknowledged his sins and imperfections and prayed to God for absolution.

My second example is the Christian Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. He adopted the methods of Ghandi and applied them in this country, albeit not in their Indian fullness. By his example and through the movement of which he was a great part, segregation by law was ended in the United States. He also gave all of the credit for his successes to God. He prayed daily and acknowledged that such prayer gave him insight and wisdom. He did not live a pure life, but acknowledged his imperfections and offered repentence and prayed for absolution.

Following the rule of threes, my third example is Malcolm X, a muslim. Although his methods differed from those of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi, he acknowledged the existence of God and was able to change hearts and minds for the great benefit of men. He also prayed daily and sought repentence for his sins, of which he acknowledged many.

These three great men had tremendous social and political impact, and all three acknowledged without doubt the existence and relevance of God. Although each of the three approached spirituality from different paths (Hindu, Christian, Muslim), they each came to the conclusion that there was God, that God is relevant and active, and that without God they could achieve nothing. They also all three acknowledged both the sinfulness of man and that they were themselves sinful. They each also sought to overcome their sinful natures (with varying degrees of success) and spread spirituality to others.

Examples of men who believed and were able to great things with God's help are too numerous to list. For myself, the example of Ghandi is sufficient. That this gentle, love-filled soul was able to change the most populous nation on earth at the time with the acknowleged help of God is sufficient to convince me.

Others may point to the beauty of the world, to the joy of living and to the sense of divinity that comes from holding a baby in one's arms. These things may be sufficient in and of themselves to convince others of the existence of God, and certainly they play a part in my own spirituality. There are doubtless an infinity of reasons for acknowledging the existence of God, and I am certainly not capable of listing but a few.

I certainly recognize the evils that have been inflicted on others in the name of God, as well as the evils that have been inflicted based on atheism/communism/capitalism/socialism/greed and a host of other 'faiths'. The only response that can be given to this host of evils is that men will do evil to one another, and need little in the way of justification.

Distilled to their basic sense, however, the faiths of Hinduism, Christianity and Islam share in some principles that are difficult to refute. First, that men are sinful, bathed in sin, grow in sin and are constantly tempted to sin. Secondly, that there exists a higher power with authority to expiate that sinfulness through genuine repentance and prayer. Third, that the first principle men should apply to each other is love.

Coming to faith and bringing others to faith is the highest calling of men, and all three of the religions I have referenced acknowledge that and share that goal. I do not know enough about Buddhism to state emphatically one way or another that it shares in these principles, although I suspect that it does.

Religion is not a racket, although men will make a racket of anything given a chance. The first step in coming to enlightenment by whatsoever path one chooses is an acknowledgement of the existence of God, no matter what name you give him/her. To deny the existence of a power beyond oneself seems to me to be simply error.

[AverageJoe]

1. Your essay is lovely

and I am in no way mocking or belittling it when I say that the strongest evidence I see for a God is in the work of Patrick Fitzgerald.

[DanCa]

3. Or Jimmy Carter (nt)

[BlueEyedSon]

2. ... and some reasons for not

There is No God (And You Know It)
Sam Harris
10.06.2005

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings.
The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html

Why not praise Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead?

[DanCa]

5. Instead of Thor can I worship Superman

Hey Supes beat Thor in the Avengers JLA Cross Over.

[go west young man]

48. According to Joseph Campbell or Jung

its ok to worship a superman. That superman being yourself of course. Books like "Hero with a thousand faces" sum up the worlds religions and human behavoir quite nicely for me. Who needs religion when you have a dreaming head?

[DanCa]

88. Just remember the song don't step on superman's cape

See Jesus only walked on water Super Man can change the Course of Mighty Rivers. Personally I wish that we at DU would stop this infighting I dont care what religion we are or arent the religious right are the golitah imagine if the david that is DU forms a rock of the protest and starts targeting the right wing freaks and than we can finally live in the peace. It's not the left wing christians on this page we should be mad at its the right wing zealots.

[papau]

6. "obliged to present evidence for his existence" - or "non-existence"?

First example in the book "talking past each other".

Faith is a concept that is obvious and should not be overlooked, even as a matter of principle.

[BlueEyedSon]

10. Sorry, I dissagree entirely. Read this.

BTW, I do not challenge the existence/reality of faith. It definitely exists (look at all the schmucks who had faith in Bush and reelected him....).

The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

More: http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html

[BlueEyedSon]

15. And an oldie but goodie:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
--Stephen Roberts

[Burried News]

27. There are statements that can neither be proven or disproven.

For example: The history of ideas shows that the only thing absolutely true is that nothing is absolutely true.

[BlueEyedSon]

30. 2+2=4. Gravity exists and is holding your ass to your chair. You will die.

Maybe we should keep an open mind on these, like with Evolution/Intelligent Design....?

[Nihil]

49. 2+2=11. Gravity is a myth - the Earth sucks. Haven't done so far.

2+2=11 (in base 3).

My ass isn't being held to a chair at the moment - I'm standing - so
your belief that gravity exists is obviously false.

Your assertion that "You will die" is a matter of faith that has
no relevant supporting evidence to date. There may well be a lot of
inferred predictions to be made but as these inferences were not
drawn from *me*, they cannot be guaranteed to be correct ...

Interestingly enough, gravity is the only thing that can transmit
information at a speed greater than that of light (other than
theoretical particles like tachyons). Strangely enough, it is the
one thing that most people believe in even though they can't explain it.

There again, maybe I'm just in a flippant mood at the moment.
:hi:

[BlueEyedSon]

54. You're wrong about gravity and the speed of light you know.

Gravity operates at exactly the speed of light, and faster than light experiments are done all the time with photons.

[Nihil]

72. What's the "orbit" thing about then?

> Gravity operates at exactly the speed of light

How does this tie in with the thought experiment wherein the sun
instantaneously disappears?

(Can't remember where I came across the above but it intrigued me.
Would appreciate any thoughts on this please.)

Does the Earth continue to orbit the point where the sun used to be
for 8 minutes or so (i.e., that light takes to cover the 93 million
miles) before suddenly (and without any further interaction) zipping
off tangentially or does the removal of the gravitational attraction
act instantly?

If the latter, then gravity acts superluminarily (sp?) but if the
former then WTF is 'holding' the earth in orbit for those 8 seconds?
Faith? :-)

> faster than light experiments are done all the time with photons

Not sure about "all the time" but I heard that they'd managed to
reproduce the experiment demonstrating non-local effects.
There again, this is almost as likely to be a symptom of an incomplete
explanation as it is a further stretch of the existing one.
The beauty of pure science is that it can continually refine/correct
itself as more evidence becomes available rather than making ever
larger excuses to protect the infallibility of predecessors.

[BlueEyedSon]

73. Yup, the earth continues to orbit, sorry!

If you're really interested, I recommend:



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375727205/qid=1129133419/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3873729-8147854?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Nihil]

75. Thanks for the rec!

Will have to look out for that book - ta!

[Az]

76. Its a good book

Part way through it myself. Although I do not always find myself in agreement with Greene he does present a lot of information about where we are now in our understanding of the universe.

[Burried News]

77. See you one an raise you 2.

Kip Thorne et.al. Gravitation
Penrose The Emperor's New Mind (for undecidable propositions - basically even in an axiomatic system free of contradictions, one can construct an infinite number of Theorems whose truth or falsity can not be ascertained)

He has a new one that is an excellent buy
The Road to Reality : A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (Hardcover)
by Roger Penrose

How is your God 'peak oil' doing these days?

[BlueEyedSon]

81. You have a competing theory (and evidence)? I'm all ears!

[Burried News]

82. The Eye says he's all ears but doesn't listen. And then there's

the intellectual honesty thing that others seem to notice as well.
Gotta feed the dragon now - seeya later.

[BlueEyedSon]

83. Nice drive-by.

Go get some evidence and come back... or are you faith-based?

[Burried News]

74. Gravity propagates at the speed of light (as a maximum)

Gravitational waves have yet to be observed.
If the sun disappears we continue to circle because the space we are in has already been warped by the sun.

[Nihil]

78. Ok, see if I've got it yet ...

1) Space is being warped by the mass of the sun.
2) The effect that we call gravity is the result of this warping.
3) If the sun disappeared, the mass would no longer be warping space.
4) Space would "flatten out" at the speed of light.
5) The distance from the sun/gap means it takes 8 minutes to affect our orbit.
6) After the 8 minutes are up, space is "normal" again so we go wizzing away.

Is that right?

(If not, guess I'll have to get the book recommended above but thanks
for trying to explain it.)

[Burried News]

80. Yes by Jove you've got it.

And once it's flat we go whizzing off on the tangent (ignoring the warps caused by other matter and energy)

[papau]

35. Sagan was fun- but lost his hold on "logic" and it's limits when "God" was

discussed/

A very weak, as usual, Sagan anti-God screed. Indeed the PBS series he did was marred by the same bad logic.

"every physical test" does not make sense when discussing the meta-physical. And thought experiments lead to God for most folks.

Still, those saying they do not know - namely the Agnostic, and those who strongly believe, based solely faith as there is no physical experiment that can prove they are correct, that there is no God - namely the atheist, are welcome by me to the discussion.

I expecting talking past each other will not end - but with luck it will be a fun discussion.

[BlueEyedSon]

36. Define "meta-physical" phenomena and cite evidence for their existence

[papau]

38. Oh I think we have talked past each other enough for one day!

"cite evidence for their existence" -

Well - all those thought experiments are of interest - Plato, etc.

[BlueEyedSon]

45. Maybe we will stop talking past each other when you come back

to earth!

[papau]

64. :-)

:-)

[wtbymark]

55. metaphysics means above physics

it is a discipline of philosophy, like extistentailism, ethics, logic etc.

[BlueEyedSon]

56. On my bookshelf, chemistry is above physics. Cosmology is just to

the right. Math to the left.

[beam me up scottie]

43. You never give up begging the question, do you?

"those who strongly believe, based solely faith as there is no physical experiment that can prove they are correct, that there is no God - namely the atheist"

You know damn well that's not a definition of atheism because you've been told this time and time again by DU atheists.

A little intellectual honesty would be a refreshing change of pace.

[papau]

65. intellectual honesty would be you saying I was correct! - But hell may

freeze over before that happens - if there is a hell :-)

:toast:

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

67. I'll say you're correct when you are.

Insulting atheists by continuing to redefine them is an excellent example of disrespect, though.

Thanks for illustrating that point for us, we appreciate it.

[lazarus]

98. Please stop

misdefining atheists.

"Still, those saying they do not know - namely the Agnostic, and those who strongly believe, based solely faith as there is no physical experiment that can prove they are correct, that there is no God - namely the atheist, are welcome by me to the discussion. "

That's just wrong in a bunch of ways. For examply, atheists are not "those who strongly believe...that there is no god." Atheists are those who do not believe in a god. Period.

Once more:

Gnosticism/agnosticism is what you know. Or don't.

Theism/atheism is what you believe. Or not.

As an atheist, I don't believe in any gods whatsoever. I have seen nothing to make me believe in any gods whatsoever. If any evidence of a god's existence comes to light, I will be happy to reconsider my stance.

Clear?

[DemBones DemBones]

9. It's a shame you didn't read his post.

And I think you didn't because you were far too quick with the cut and past rebuttal.

[BlueEyedSon]

17. Looks like you didn't read all of mine either

[DemBones DemBones]

84. Wrong. I did read your post. nt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. This premise is based upon one concept of God

And there are many concepts. One that I know of says that God is everything; in Unity God is in balance, but has no experience. So God creates everything so that God can experience everything, including those things that we humans think of as "bad". You see, to some people, God is not moral in the sense that humans think of morality. (and wasn't it Jesus who said that the rain falls on the just and on the unjust?) In this concept of God, all the terrible things that happen don't matter, because what appears to be happening is merely a dream. The essence of each thing, from subatomic particles on up, is divine, and, as such, immortal;it only changes form.

For a person holding this concept of God, the rational of the argument you cite does not hold.

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Why not praise Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead?

Because not all Theists are assholes.

There are many Theists who are as opposed to the Theocrats as any Atheist. Belief in God is a neutral thing, in terms of human conduct; it can lead to sublimities of thought and science and art, or it can lead to mental enslavement, mass murder, and universal death.

It is sad to say, but unbelievers can, and have, also followed the path of pain and degradation. An un-precious few of them, of course, but still a few. And they are best also left forgotten.

I'll propose an idea here: That the Christian concept of the "Holy Spirit" was developed to detach the faithful from the religious craziness that Jesus himself deplored -- and which the Church eventually embraced regardless.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, H.R. "Bob" Dobbs, the evil emperor Xenu, and Eris Discordiensis are all valuable allies. But the belief itself is unimportant. Good and Evil are always around and always active, and no matter how loudly Evil pronounces itself as Good, it's still Evil.

People argue about this -- and God laughs. At the end of time, I think, we will all have a good laugh. But these are the days where the clowns carry butcher knives and so-called "Men of God" call for political assassination, international warfare, child abuse and sexually-driven hatred.

Today, I'm going to do something about it. Today, I'm going to make spaghetti.

--p!
With meatballs. Of high-quality meat. And with fresh vegetables. And dedicate it to the eventual salvation of the hypocrites of every religion.

[BlueEyedSon]

24. You ignore the loss of pirates and the effect on global climate at your

peril.

[Dogmudgeon]

42. Ah, but I ignore nothing and no one, and certainly not the FSM!

Those Scandinavian berserkers were also, as a rule, a fine bunch of folks.

"Serve Evil, and you will BE evil.
Serve Good, but be sure to serve it with a fine quality Parmesan."

--p!

[BlueEyedSon]

29. BTW, are you characterizing the majority of medieval Norsemen

as assholes?

Boy, history does judge harshly!

[BlueEyedSon]

53. But all are delusional narcissists!

:)

[nickinSTL]

40. I take exception to your singling out Thor

I'm not, by far, a particularly religious guy.

But, I do honor the gods of the ancient Norse.

I find it much more believable than Christianity...I've never understood how one can have faith in an all-knowing, all-powerful god. If god is all-knowing and all-powerful, then all of the evil and bad things that happen in the world, god ALLOWS to happen. God could stop them, and doesn't. That's not a god I can accept.

The Norse pantheon is a different view of the gods. The gods are neither all-powerful or all-knowing. The majority of them are essentially good (although their actions don't always seem that way to humans), but they can't be expected to fix everything. It just isn't possible.

Pick on the flying spaghetti monster all you want, but leave the warder of Midgard, Thor, out of it.

[BlueEyedSon]

41. Cool yer hammer, I was suggesting him as a viable alternative

[nickinSTL]

50. "Why not praise Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead?"

The tone seemed pretty dismissive, to me.

[BlueEyedSon]

52. I am a Pastafarian. rAmen!

[papau]

4. I really like your post :-)

:toast:

:-)

[txaslftist]

91. Thanks.

[txaslftist]

92. I am surprised by the vehemence of the atheists (or whatever...

...they like to call themselves these days) who respond to my post of some of the reasons I have faith with essentially, "you poor rube, you don't know what you're talking about".

Ghandi is laughing or crying, I can't tell.

Peace unto you, brother. Or as they say, Salaam al aikum.

[beam me up scottie]

93. So, it's now "or whatever they like to call themselves these days"?

I was wrong about you.

It wasn't ignorance but prejudice.

I regret having tried to communicate with you and extending an olive branch.

BTW, Gandhi would be terribly disappointed but not overly surprised at the intolerance you've shown me in return.
;-)

So be it.

[really annoyed]

95. And I quote you

"To deny the existence of a power beyond oneself seems to me to be simply error."

Not to sound second grade, but you started it! :)

Your post, no doubt, was a challenge to atheists at this board. I'm glad you have reasons to believe in a higher power, but I don't think your intention was to be friendly about it.

Your flip remark about "whatever they call themselves these days" is uncalled for.

Why were you expecting a good reaction when you were rude in the first place?

Read "An Atheist With Gandhi."

http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/gora13.htm

[goddess40]

7. How can some extremely sexist men be proof of god?

"the example of Gandhi is sufficient. That this gentle, love-filled soul" While Gandhi has some great attributes he was horribly racist and sexist as was Malcom X so I hardly think of them as proof that there is a god.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. Malcolm Shabaz

was a different man than Malcolm X. He came back from Hajj (pilgrimage) realizing more about Unity, and was starting to preach this when he was assassinated.

I think the point of this post was not to note the failings of these men, for, as was pointed out, we all have failings; it was how they were able to rise above these failings and do something truly remarkable and helpful for the world.

[goddess40]

20. They rose above partially by standing on women

They didn't recognize them as equals and that is unforgivable. I would be more forgiving if they had lifted the women up with them.

[trotsky]

58. GREAT point, goddess40.

Sexism is apparently not something that the o.p. considers to be a negative trait, at least when it comes to justifying belief in his god.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Thank you

The world's spiritual traditions really say the same thing; to take care of one another and to not get hung up in violence and hatred. One must realize that one of life's great dramas is to overcome the prejudice and hatred within one's self. Mystic orders call this losing the false self in the Real.

If you have the luck and honor of meeting a truly spiritual person, it is amazing. They are peace, gentleness, and love. They laugh at differences, and show how everything is really One.

Edited to change "holy" to spiritual: as the Lakota people say, all is holy.

[DemBones DemBones]

11. A lovely post, despite the naysayers

who I suspect barely skimmed it.

[zeemike]

13. Nice post

But I think that the best evidence for God is Nature itself and the science that try to discover it.
If you take just one thing in nature like Gravity and try to study it and discover how it works you will see that there is something in nature that can only be explained by admitting we know little or nothing abut the real universe and creation.

[Finder]

14. Einstein, Paine, Lincoln, Carnegie etc...

Many non-theists have brought enlightenment as well. Of course it is not pc to mention they were nontheists.

http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm

[papau]

39. Not nice to claim as non-theist those whose history does not make

that clear.

Faith is an interesting part of life - and losing faith at somepoint - and finding it again albeit in a perhaps somewhat altered form - is also part of life.

How do you define "non-theist" - and Which of those you name meet that definition?

[Finder]

History doesn't make it clear?

Sure it does.

I define theists as those who believe in a personal god or gods. Atheists are those who do not believe in a personal god or gods.

Of course we also have labels such as agnostic or deist which are safe ways to say atheist.lol (used in politics and biz)

[moobu2]

16. I hear ya…I would add

There’s also some strong evidence that Santa Clause exists. After all, who can deny the joy he brings to all the little children every year all around the world. Presents just appear out of no where (if you’ve been good). My strongest evidence that Santa Clause exists is, how could all those department stores and commercials be so wrong? They couldn’t, Case closed!

Santa Clause does exist! And so does the Easter Bunny.

[BlueEyedSon]

18. god IS Santa Clase for adults, dontcha know....

[goddess40]

26. my god can beat up your god

that is what comes after kids get too old to say my dad can beat up your dad.

I know that some religious people do good things but is it because of their 'religiousness' - I don't think so it's simply because they are good people. I can't think of a world religion where the leaders haven't been corrupted, like the republican party many of the followers are wonderful people but the elite is corrupt.

[moobu2]

34. Yep and I cant think of any

wars or genocides caused by the belief in Santa either. Maybe it's time to elevate Santa to God status, after all, he's paid his dues and climbed down a hell of a lot of chimneys.

It would be a much more fun and peaceful earth if everyone worshiped Santa and gave each other presents all the time and stuff like that too.

[BlueEyedSon]

37. You, obviously, have not seen the "Hebrew Hammer".... nt

[Bloodblister Bob]

22. God = Imaginary Abusive Father

Believing in God is an extremely unhealthy mental practice. It corrupts the ability to reason, which is the only thing that sets us apart from animals.

[Brotherjohn]

23. Wonderful thoughts. While I don't think the call to faith is a necessity..

... I do think, given the cultural backdrop of human history, it has been the most effective way to bring wonderful movements such as those you mention to fruition.

Spirituality, and the idea of a supreme being and afterlife, are powerful tools in bringing people together.

But to play the Devil's advocate (pun absolutely and literally intended) these same tools can and have been used to sow great suffering and destruction throughout history as well. Perhaps this is a manifestation of the Devil just as the things you cite are your evidence of God.

For my own part, the movements and people you list (as well as Jesus, and many others) are evidence of, certainly, the power of good, and the incredible force that is love. Whether that fits the definition of a "god" or is supernatural is another question.

But the combined intellects and acts of love and goodwill of humankind are, indeed, an amazing force that is worthy of consideration as a primal, spiritual, perhaps supernatural force certainly worthy of our honor, if not "worship".

[trotsky]

59. Belief in an afterlife...

can be an impediment to human morality and progress, too.

If you are convinced that a better life awaits us all, perhaps you won't be as inclined to change things here on earth. Or, you might even be certain that by killing people you're doing them a favor, since you're sending them to a better place.

Not quite as cut-and-dried as you might think it to be.

[BBradley]

25. I find it humorous that some of your reasons for belief...

include 3 men who were assasinated, and the "beauty of nature" that brought us Katrina and the recent Quake.

Man is naturally sinful? What is sin? And why does God feel the need to absolve us of something he/she arbitrarily foisted on man?

Faith is the highest calling of man? Not good works, merely the faith one has in their God/Gods?

[Dhalgren]

28. Epicurus was a non-believer in gods, yet he originated (at least

in western thought) the "Golden Mean" and the "Golden Rule". "Treat others as you, yourself, would wish to be treated" is from Epicurus, some 200 years before Jesus. There is no denying the impact certain individuals have had upon society and humankind for the general good; the three you list are good examples. Of course there are numerous examples of individuals who have had a most opposite impact; and many (if not all) were believers in one or another "god". Any person who holds a faith in a god will feel the need to give reasons for holding that faith - because such faith is not a "reasonable" thing to hold. But spiritual faith is not reasonable and need not be; a person believes or not and the "whys" and "wherefores" are immaterial. I am glad that you believe in something that gives you hope and comfort.

[papau]

51. Epicurus was a believer in God not influencing our life.& that there was

no immaterial soul. His metaphysics was indeed materialistic with hedonistic (where pleasure is defined as tranquility)ethics, and that a pre-requiste to pleasure was not fearing death or God.

Epicurus to Menoeceus, greetings:

Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.

Those things which without ceasing I have declared unto you, do them, and exercise yourself in them, holding them to be the elements of right life. First believe that God is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that is repugnant to his blessedness. Believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality. For there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that men do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in men like themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind.

Accustom yourself to believing that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply the capacity for sensation, and death is the privation of all sentience; therefore a correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding to life a limitless time, but by taking away the yearning after immortality. For life has no terrors for him who has thoroughly understood that there are no terrors for him in ceasing to live. Foolish, therefore, is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will pain when it comes, but because it pains in the prospect. Whatever causes no annoyance when it is present, causes only a groundless pain in the expectation. Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer.

But in the world, at one time men shun death as the greatest of all evils, and at another time choose it as a respite from the evils in life. The wise man does not deprecate life nor does he fear the cessation of life. The thought of life is no offense to him, nor is the cessation of life regarded as an evil. And even as men choose of food not merely and simply the larger portion, but the more pleasant, so the wise seek to enjoy the time which is most pleasant and not merely that which is longest. And he who admonishes the young to live well and the old to make a good end speaks foolishly, not merely because of the desirability of life, but because the same exercise at once teaches to live well and to die well. Much worse is he who says that it were good not to be born, but when once one is born to pass quickly through the gates of Hades. For if he truly believes this, why does he not depart from life? It would be easy for him to do so once he were firmly convinced. If he speaks only in jest, his words are foolishness as those who hear him do not believe.

We must remember that the future is neither wholly ours nor wholly not ours, so that neither must we count upon it as quite certain to come nor despair of it as quite certain not to come.

We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others are groundless; and that of the natural some are necessary as well as natural, and some natural only. And of the necessary desires some are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid of uneasiness, some if we are even to live. He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body and tranquillity of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a blessed life. For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and, when once we have attained all this, the tempest of the soul is laid; seeing that the living creature has no need to go in search of something that is lacking, nor to look for anything else by which the good of the soul and of the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained because of the absence of pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure. Wherefore we call pleasure the alpha and omega of a blessed life. Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting-point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge of every good thing.

And since pleasure is our first and native good, for that reason we do not choose every pleasure whatsoever, but will often pass over many pleasures when a greater annoyance ensues from them. And often we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as a consequence a greater pleasure. While therefore all pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good, not all pleasure is should be chosen, just as all pain is an evil and yet not all pain is to be shunned. It is, however, by measuring one against another, and by looking at the conveniences and inconveniences, that all these matters must be judged. Sometimes we treat the good as an evil, and the evil, on the contrary, as a good.

Again, we regard independence of outward things as a great good, not so as in all cases to use little, but so as to be contented with little if we have not much, being honestly persuaded that they have the sweetest enjoyment of luxury who stand least in need of it, and that whatever is natural is easily procured and only the vain and worthless hard to win. Plain fare gives as much pleasure as a costly diet, when once the pain of want has been removed, while bread and water confer the highest possible pleasure when they are brought to hungry lips. To habituate one's self, therefore, to simple and inexpensive diet supplies all that is needful for health, and enables a man to meet the necessary requirements of life without shrinking, and it places us in a better condition when we approach at intervals a costly fare and renders us fearless of fortune.

When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is wisdom. Therefore wisdom is a more precious thing even than philosophy ; from it spring all the other virtues, for it teaches that we cannot live pleasantly without living wisely, honorably, and justly; nor live wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly. For the virtues have grown into one with a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them.

Who, then, is superior in your judgment to such a man? He holds a holy belief concerning the gods, and is altogether free from the fear of death. He has diligently considered the end fixed by nature, and understands how easily the limit of good things can be reached and attained, and how either the duration or the intensity of evils is but slight. Fate, which some introduce as sovereign over all things, he scorns, affirming rather that some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency. For he sees that necessity destroys responsibility and that chance is inconstant; whereas our own actions are autonomous, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach. It were better, indeed, to accept the legends of the gods than to bow beneath that yoke of destiny which the natural philosophers have imposed. The one holds out some faint hope that we may escape if we honor the gods, while the necessity of the naturalists is deaf to all entreaties. Nor does he hold chance to be a god, as the world in general does, for in the acts of a god there is no disorder; nor to be a cause, though an uncertain one, for he believes that no good or evil is dispensed by chance to men so as to make life blessed, though it supplies the starting-point of great good and great evil. He believes that the misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance.

Exercise yourself in these and related precepts day and night, both by yourself and with one who is like-minded; then never, either in waking or in dream, will you be disturbed, but will live as a god among men. For man loses all semblance of mortality by living in the midst of immortal blessings.

[Dhalgren]

86. Nice of you to post this letter. It points up just how brilliant and

humane Epicurus was. Also (and of course you know this), no where does Epicurus say that he believes in any "god". He is explaining to his interlocutor how one should approach the conception of "god" and the relationship to that conception. Epicurus was quite aware that most people in his day (as in ours) gave a sort of silly lip-service to belief in a ridiculous caricature of what "god" would actually be.

I think that a better example of how Epicurus felt about the "god" thing is this: "If god can stop evil but doesn't want to, then he himself is evil; if god wants to stop evil, but cannot then he is weak and not what we thought; if god wants to stop evil, but simply doesn't, then he might as well not exist."

[AirmensMom]

31. I like your post, txas.

Thanks. :)

[beam me up scottie]

32. "bringing others to faith is the highest calling of men"

Are you even aware of how Gandhi felt about proselytizing ?

I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all sons of God, but for each of us there may be different sons of God in a special sense. Thus for me Chaitanya may be the only begotten son of God. God cannot be the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. (Harijan: June 3, 1937)
***
I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ's Christianity. I cannot conceive Jesus, if he was living in flesh in our midst, approving of modern Christian organizations, public worship, or ministry. (Young India: September 22, 1921)
***
I hold that proselytisation under the cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy to say the least. It is most resented by people here. Religion after all is a deeply personal thing. It touches the heart.

Why should I change my religion because the doctor who professes Christianity as his religion has cured me of some disease, or why should the doctor expect me to change whilst I am under his influence? (Young India: April 23, 1931)
***
My fear is that though Christian friends nowadays do not say or admit it that Hindu religion is untrue, they must harbour in their breast that Hinduism is an error and that Christianity, as they believe it, is the only true religion. So far as one can understand the present (Christian) effort, it is to uproot Hinduism from her very foundation and replace it by

another faith. (Harijan: March 13,1937)
***
If I had the power and could legislate, I should stop all proselytizing. In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink . (November 5, 1935)


http://www.stephen-knapp.com/mahatma_gandhi_on_conversion.htm

*Thanks to Swami Aksharanandaji who compiled this information and Vidya Bharati, New York who produced it.

[BeyondThePale]

33. Why would you need to invoke/invent god to explain...

good acts in the world (e.g., by MX, MLK, or Ghandi)? Human beings have free will to act in a manner that is good, bad, or indifferent. Certainly, you do not hold god's (metaphorical) feet to the fire for atrocities that humans commit (even atrocities in the name of their favorite deity).

[McKenzie]

44. Very good commentary

I've posted recently to say, that whilst I am not a Christian, I have a deeply held spiritual belief. I do not know what it is, where it comes from or why it is there.

And I'm not going to diss organised religion again too strongly although I do view organised religion, as it is practised today, with deep suspicion. The reasons for that are articulated (badly) in posts I made recently. However, I do have issues with how the religion we term "Christianity" has evolved from around the fourth century ad.

Your comment "Religion is not a racket, although men will make a racket of anything given a chance" mirrors what happened during the persecution of the Nazarene Church and the eventual triumph of the Roman Church. They made a racket out of it and effectively laid the ground for sexism.

Orthodox Christianity is not based upon what Jesus taught (his teachings are somewhat different to orthodox Christianity and derive from Nazarene principles) but on the teachings of the Roman Church which effectively plotted to get its own way...a racket in other words. In fact, the Koran uses the term "Nazara", or followers of the Nazarene tradition, rather than "Christians". Nazarene teachings should be regarded as the true basis of real Christianity and I bet most DU'ers would empathise with those teachings.

Anyway, enough of me trying to sound clever. Your post is thoughtful and should not be attacked for that reason alone. Otherwise we waste time fighting each other when the real enemies are already at the gate.

Peace.

<edit> speling

[arwalden]

46. Huh?

<< The strongest evidence I have for the existence of God is the belief of others and the impact that belief had upon their lives and the lives of those around them. >>

The mere fact that OTHERS believe is reason enough for YOU to believe? Wow. And that's the STRONGEST evidence you have? Really? Those are some incredibly low standards for what qualifies as proof.

<< Religion is not a racket, >>

Oh please! Certainly it is! Who do you think pays the electric bill at the Vatican? It's a racket for extracting money... even from the people who can LEAST afford to part with their money. It's a way to control people through threats, intimidation, mental terrorism and brainwashing.

[wtbymark]

47. So your assertion that there is a deity is based upon...

other people believing in it. Sorry, that doesn't hold water in a freshmen phi class. religion was an invention by man to explain the unknown and to help facilitate a civil society. Since our times have gotten crazy lately, I've finally decided to write my book. I have a bachelors in philosophy, specializing in metaphysics and cosmologies. But enough of that - what people perceive as a deity is simply the mental appetition of reality in the universe. Zero point energy, the vibrating energy in string theory, actual occasions - call it what you will - everything you know as the physical universe has a mental aspect to it, and it is not your mentality in perceiving. It has it's own mental aspect, this is why quantum physicists cannot solve their conundrum, because the mental cannot be measured. There's no way of quantifying the feeling of appetition. Any perception of a god is too complex therefor logically not possible.

I will bookmark this thread

[trotsky]

57. How do you explain all the atheists who have had a positive influence?

If the existence of god-believers who have done good things justifies belief in god, does the existence of atheists who have also done good things mean that there is no god?

And what about the existence of god believers who do BAD things? You are cherry-picking evidence by selecting only those believers that you feel make your case, and ignoring the millions of believers who kill, torture, rape, and just about everything else... in the name of their god.

To believe that there is a power beyond oneself seems to me to be simply wishful thinking.

[beam me up scottie]

60. They must have been closet christians.

Right?

I mean, after all, aren't all the good people "real" christians and the rest atheists?

[trotsky]

62. Silly me, I forgot!

Thanks, bmus, for setting me straight. Whew!

[beam me up scottie]

63. Don't mention it.

It was the atheist thing to do.
:evilgrin:

[Az]

61. A response

The three men you mention were indeed great men. They found a clear strength and fought for what they believed in. But, as I am sure you are aware, their belief in God is not evidence for God. It may simply be evidence that the utilitarian nature of belief in God may provide some with strength. Or it could simply be that these men had clear vision of strength concerning their fellow human beings.

But they are not the only great people this world has known. And there have been many nonbelievers that have made this a better place for all. I for one would find this world suffered a great loss if the likes of Mark Twain or Noel Coward had never been born. Imagine where our nation would be if skeptics such as Thomas Paine or Susan B Anthony had not been part of its founding. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both were known for their questioning attitude towards dogmatic belief.

Other voices fought for peace as strongly as the three you mention without the guidance of a God. Carl Sagan is still a personal hero for many and he fought long and hard against the devestation of nuclear proliferation.

Sacrifice in the betterment of the human condition is not unknown to those with no belief in God. Marie Curie lost her life pursuing medicine that helps us all. Albert Einstein, a man of both science and peace.

God does not seem to be necissary for art either. Greats such as Diego Rivera managed to find inspiration from their fellow human. Irving Berlin and Arthur Rubenstein found their music without the guidance of God. And Charlie Chaplin was able to manifest the common decency of all humans in the Little Tramp without reliance on God.

Atheists can make us laugh (Douglas Adams) or crignge in fear at the excesses of our fellow man (George Orwell). They can find the child in all of us (Walt Disney) or find the everyman in a child (Charles Schultz). We sing and dance (Gene Kelly).

Even today atheists walk amongst us fighting the good fight. Each drawing their strength from their own sense of justice. Noam Chomsky is a mighty voice for peace and makes no call to God in his pursuit of it. Janeane Garofalo defends reason and freedom without relying on God. Phil Donahue a tireless champion of liberal ideals does so without a need for God. We even until recently had Christopher Reeves and his representation of championing humanity despite his condition.

Yes, there have been great people that believe in God. But I put to you that it is clearly not necissary to believe in God to be able to do great things. Some of the greatest people in the world came by their greatness because they questioned such ideas as whether there is a god or not. They toppled ancient notions and drove us foward.

The first step of coming to enlightenment is not an acknowledgement of God. It is a recognition of how things are tied together. Some may believe that to be God. But others may see it as our shared humanity. No matter which is right it is the recognition that we are connected that brings the wisdom and not the submission to God.

[trotsky]

68. Thanks, Az.

Great post. :thumbsup:

[go west young man]

69. Ditto Az! Great post!

[Burried News]

79. Nice post. In the face of this who would dare to say that they know

God, his limits or what his/her intentions are.
Truth is beauty and beauty truth - that is all yee know on Earth and all yee need know.

[really annoyed]

96. Beautiful

Az, your posts always amaze me. You have a gift for language.

[go west young man]

66. I would have to think that agnostic is the way to be.

If one could look behind the curtain and see the answer to the universe then one would then have to ask how did that answer come to be. Hence the universe is too complex for man to understand. I like to think maybe we are entertainment for some beings who are invisible to us. Maybe they are just feeding thier egos watching us attempt to become enlightened "Supermen". Some of us make it. Some of us get lost along the way. There does seem to be a pattern to things. For example fractals and the laws of nature. As far as organized religion goes "The Da Vinci Code" is a good way to sum that ball of chaos up. Religion more often than not is a product of ones enviroment and upbringing. If there was a god I would think he/she/it would be much more impressed with those that fight against the norm than those that spend time worshipping and kissing its ass. Just my two cents.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Atheists don't presume to know the answers.

That's a matter of faith.

We don't deny gods exist, we posit there is no evidence of their existence.

[shrike]

71. One problem (for me) with either proving or disproving God's existence

(Which I realize is not the point of your post.) We use human logic to do so. God, if He does exist, is not human. He is divine, eternal, whatever. (I used God in the generic sense, not necessarily a Christian God, and 'he' in the generic sense.) Would a divine being operate by human logic? Could it even be defined by human logic? (Just as animals are not human, and while we try to define their actions in human ways, an animal's brain processes information differently, and thus responds to that information. Fascinating article in Discover Magazine recently about mammalian brains.)
However, human logic is all we have, and we try to understand the universe (there are some mighty way-out scientific theories which are really cool, but for the average person may be mind-blowing) we either use that logic or a "gut feeling" whether something is right or wrong. (I read a criminologist's assessment that, in his experience, 'gut feelings' are real, and even useful, in many life situations, even though, as he says, the good criminologist uses the scientific method.)
Since we are all unique, and experience differently, we all come up with different conclusions. I try to keep that in mind when dealing with people, because, that person's world is a little different than mine, even though we may live next door to each other, and walk in the same environment.
Ultimately, I guess, one has to remember the words of my favorite atheist (I'm a believer), John Lennon: Whatever gets you through the night.

BTW, your post itself is lovely.

[jackthesprat]

85. "Sin"?

Sorry, that is the worst concept contributed by Christianity. To my knowledge, Buddhism, Hinduism have no such conception.
And why would God want this instilled in our youth? Why?

[sinkingfeeling]

87. Yes your post is lovely and your faith is a comfort to you in trying

times. However, your arguments for the existence of God do not hold water. As others have pointed out, there are just as many examples of men and women who have accomplished much for humanity and did not hold a belief in God.

You seem to believe that 'god' is the source of these men's greatness. But what evidence do you have that they would not have acted in exactly the same matter without belief?

Seeing beauty in the world or enjoying life isn't limited to those who believe in God.

You infer that God is the source of all greatness and that mankind is 'evil' by design (either by God nor the devil) and that only by the grace of god, can we learn to love other human beings and peace.

That is just the opposite of what I think. I believe it is human nature that we are born with love and peace and a desire to do 'good'. I believe it is the development of the human mind through education and questioning, that allows us to accomplish greatness. I believe that the greatest deterrent to that is religion. Religion seeks to provide the answers and stop the questioning...obey, make no decisions without consulting your holy book or preacher, and of course, 'we know the truth'.

Of course, I have no problem with you holding your beliefs (though you admit that part of your belief is from your upbringing), but please accept that many, many people do not share it. And I cannot agree that 'bringing others to faith is the highest calling of men'. I would say that seeking justice and fairness, eradicating disease and hunger, and seeking peace and recognizing the humanity of all are callings deserving of much more respect.

[onager]

89. I'm an Atheist Grump and I refuse to see beauty in the world!

:hi:

Just kidding. Earlier this year, I even left a donation at this mosque in Cairo, Egypt. (Well, ok, I tipped the caretaker...) It's the Qaitbey Mosque, built about 20 years before a fellow named Columbus climbed into his boat and went looking for heathens to slaughter in the name of Jesus.

Oh, and this non-beauty-seeing Atheist Grump, just out of spite, climbed to the very top of that minaret. The view of Cairo is breathtaking:



Among the tourist attractions inside Qaitbey Mosque: a footprint of the Prophet Mohammed, preserved in some sort of mortar...not unlike the footprints at a major American Center Of Worship, Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollywood. And I'm sure the footprint is just as historically authentic as all the relics/sites attributed to Jesus in Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, when I came down out of the minaret, I was back in the earthly location of the mosque, where no religion seems to help much--"The City Of The Dead."

And toddlers were climbing thru piles of garbage:

"They are joined by even a greater number of cockroaches, mosquitoes, flies, and vermin of all sorts..."

The rooms are also filled with the overwhelming smell of the garbage piled outside their doors and sewage leaking out of the un-drained tanks.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/city.htm

I ponder this kind of dichotomy a lot, and it's certainly not limited to Egypt or Muslim countries. i.e., the dichotomy between saving people's souls for some dubious future paradise, and helping them here on Earth.

But to repeat myself, I'm nothing but an ol' Atheist Grump. Just ignore me.

[Zhade]

90. Lots of people believed Iraq had WMD, too.

Didn't make it true.

I'm glad you have something you feel makes you happier, but please don't pretend that widespread belief in something is what makes that something true.

[beam me up scottie]

94. And even better reasons not to:

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

*********

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

*********

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1798944,00.html

:hi:

[FM Arouet666]

97. Interesting, but I still have no reason to believe in a myth.

Great men from three different religions believe in god, therefore, god must exist? The logic escapes me. Einstein, Sagan, and Feynman were atheists, therefore god does not exist. Just as silly a statement.

You have not provided reasons to believe in a god, you have simply
relinquished the responsibility to think for yourself. "A person greater than I is a believer, therefore I must believe." Hogwash.

Beauty of the world, divinity holding a baby, lovely, but I see the same things and see no need to invoke an imaginary supernatural being.

The first step to enlightenment is to relegate belief in the supernatural to the historical trash heap filled with ancient gods, myths, and mistaken beliefs in how the natural world functions.

Believe what you like, but you offer no evidence for a supernatural god. I suspect your inner voice of doubt has prompted you to post this "soul" searching manifesto, I suggest you listen to your voice with greater clarity.

:evilfrown: