From a Theist to an Atheist.

[gooey]

Let me begin by saying that I'm sure we agree on one thing, and that is the organization and idea(s) of religion. No matter the religion it is. Not just the violent extremists of any faith, but those that would control the lives of others through politics and legislation.

However.

I'm having trouble understanding a few things which I hope you can help me out with. The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear the word Atheist is I think, "God does not exist". And then I think to myself. What does this mean? Which definition of God are we talking about? and is it a personal decision made by each individual Atheist? or are there guidelines for being an Atheist? Now, forgive me for being presumptuous, but there are probably a few gods which most of you can agree on, Jesus, the God of Abraham, Buddha, Brahman; the gods of ancient Egypt and Greece and other primal tribal gods, etc.

But what are your thoughts on the idea of "God is Love"? And don't mistake me for meaning romantic love. But more a kind of charity. Benevolence and caring. As when you would volunteer at a homeless shelter. Or be a shoulder for a friend. Or given someone a ride home when it's out of your way. Surely-hopefully-you have experienced this. Could this not be considered "God"?

And what about the idea of the soul. Do you deny or claim the non-existence of this as well? And then there is the matter of the mind. the 4th dimension? Antimatter? Are these not all something that are made of the immaterial?

Do all Atheists share the same beliefs on reincarnation and life after death?

Does,"God", for you, include all of these or only some of these? or none of these? I hope for a wide spectrum of ideas on these matters.

[Warpy]

1. Atheists have no orthodoxy, no holy writ, no liturgy

so you'll find a greater diversity of guesswork among atheists than you will among members of any given religion.

Atheists are just people who have never seen any evidence of god(s) and who are too honest to pretend they have just to make believers feel more comfy.

And that's all they have in common.

[gooey]

2. Are you an atheist?

[trotsky]

3. The first hurdle is for you to define what you mean by "god."

If the definition you provide is logically inconsistent or contradictory, it is perfectly justified to say THAT god does not exist. Without a definition, it is impossible to declare whether something exists or not and so "God does not exist" becomes "There is no evidence for the existence of gods."

But what are your thoughts on the idea of "God is Love"?

God is love? Believe it or not, I think that's the perfect analogy. Love exists only within the mind of the human experiencing it. It does not exist apart from our consciousness. It can inspire and motivate us to do things, but does not have any kind of physical or actual existence. Yup, sounds like most gods to me.

And what about the idea of the soul. Do you deny or claim the non-existence of this as well?

No evidence of souls, either. Perhaps you are the first human being to have some? And even if there are other "immaterial" things (antimatter is not one of them), that doesn't mean souls exist.

Do all Atheists share the same beliefs on reincarnation and life after death?

No, not at all. There is no doctrine, creed, or catechism for atheists. The only thing we have in common is that we lack belief in gods.

[gooey]

4. What do you mean by...

"physical or actual existence"? Do you suppose there to be two different forms of existence?

[trotsky]

5. An existence that isn't dependent upon a conscious mind.

Depending on one's definition, "god" could be said to exist in the same way that dreams exist.

[gooey]

6. So.

Physical is existence is not dependent upon a conscious mind.

Actual is existence is no dependent upon a conscious mind.

Is there an existence that is dependent upon the conscious mind?

[trotsky]

7. Sure, imaginary existence. n/t

[gooey]

9. You mean.

The existence of the imagination?

[trotsky]

10. No. Imaginary existence. n/t

[gooey]

12. what is n/t?

But, imagined existence is no existence at all.

[trotsky]

15. n/t = "no text"

I.e., the post is just a subject line.

But, imagined existence is no existence at all.

And now you're beginning to realize what atheists think of your god.

[rd_kent]

21. Well done, trotsky. Very well done.

[gooey]

23. But if we are agreed that imaginary existence

is no existence at all. Then there is no existence which is dependent upon the conscious. And therefore all existence must ultimately be dependent upon the unconscious.

[trotsky]

25. You are just throwing shit out now to see what sticks to the wall.

And therefore all existence must ultimately be dependent upon the unconscious.

Totally unsupported conclusion, and completely nonsensical to boot. Again - you're starting to understand how atheists view your god.

So when are you going to give us your definition of god?

[gooey]

27. How is the conclusion unsupported?

You and I first agreed upon 3 types of existence.

Actual, physical and imaginary.

Then we agreed that imaginary existence is no existence at all. By definition alone this seems to be proven.

Therefore we are left with 2 forms of existence.

Neither of which is dependent upon the conscious.

Are we agreed on what we already agreed on?

If it's okay with you, I will address the definition of god after we settle the first matter.

[trotsky]

28. First off, I don't recall agreeing to those 3 "types of existence."

For me, there are only two: real or imaginary.

Imaginary existence is that which is the product of, an contained solely within, a conscious mind. An idea, a thought, a feeling, a god.

Real existence is not dependent on a conscious mind.

Now pay attention, because the next step is where you go off the rails: just because something is NOT dependent on "the conscious" doesn't make it dependent on "the unconscious." That's what is utterly nonsensical and illogical.

You really need to work on these silly little semantic games that your youth pastor or bible study leader taught you. I could see it coming a mile away as soon as you started to try and frame the argument around your arbitrary terms and rush into an unsupported conclusion.

So when's that definition coming?

[gooey]

34. Well...

I went back and looked at our conversation. If you do the same and we're still talking about 2 different things then perhaps this is a conversation best left offline.

[trotsky]

36. Well...

Considering you still haven't even attempted to do the first thing requested of you (i.e., provide your definition of god), I question the fruitfulness of any dialog.

[gooey]

47. Well...

I guess I would define god by what all gods seem to have in common. So whatever the guiding force in a man's life is I would consider to be his god.

[trotsky]

51. Doesn't sound like a very useful or even consistent definition.

Many hundreds of gods have been postulated over human history. Not all that many were ones that would be considered a "guiding force" in someone's life. (Think of the Greek or Roman gods.) I would also note that not everyone has what they (or even you) would consider to be a "guiding force" in their lives at all. Oh, I know the whole Campus Crusade for Christ schtick, everybody has a god, what's YOUR god - is it money? Sex? Alcohol? Blah blah blah. Problem is, if you're going to say those are gods too, well congratulations, you've made the term meaningless. Or you're simply saying that "god" = "addiction."

You've also neutered your god, because the only power you gave it was to be a "guiding force." Your definition says absolutely nothing about all the other baggage you heap on, like creating the universe, intervening to cause miracles, sacrificing its son to please its own capriciousness and thirst for suffering, etc. Are you saying you don't believe those are characteristics of gods?

[gooey]

56. In another post.

I think maybe this lady had it right. Maybe not. She, not in so many words said that a god is for worshipping. Or something like that.

[trotsky]

57. So you're committed to this neutered god concept, huh?

"God is for worshipping. Or something like that."

Why? What did it do? What is "something like (worshiping)"? Your definition is completely lacking in anything meaningful. Is it really any wonder why there are atheists?

[gooey]

62. What do you mean, "why"?

Why what?

Why is God for worshipping? Good question. I'd have to give it some thought.

Why did i say "or something like that"? becuase I couldn't remember exactly what she said and I had too little patience to look back through the forum at the moment. So I decided to paraphrase and then to add the phrase "something like that" so that you didn't get the impression that the phrase "God is for worshipping" was what she said.

Clear?

[trotsky]

69. No, not clear in the slightest.

I gave you a simple request in my first post. Define your god. You have failed to even give a meaningful definition, let alone one that could be analyzed. The best you have is that it's something that you worship. "Or something like that." Meaningless. Come up with something worthy of discussion and come back. (Hint: you'll need to get well beyond the Sunday School theology level that you're at right now.)

[rd_kent]

41. Hahahaha! You got schooled and now youre running away......Mommy! Mommy!

[gooey]

48. You're silly.

:)

[rd_kent]

59. And you have run away from all the tough qustions.

[gooey]

63. I've done no such thing.

[dmallind]

8. No one answer but I'll try

1) Most atheists instead think "I do not accept any claims that gods exist". This is much different from an active belief that gods in general, let alone any specific god let alone the big G one do not exist. Strong atheists (those who have a positive belief in the absence of all gods) do exist but are a minority.

2) For either strong atheists or weak (nothing to do with strength or validity of opinion) atheists, we rarely differentiate between different gods in the context of belief. I believe no more and no less in Jesus than I believe in Zeus.

3) You didn't bring this up, but someone will, so I'll add to 2) as a pre-emptive defense that atheists here criticize Christianity more than other faiths for two main reasons a) it is more familiar so they know what claims are made for it better, and much more germanely b) because it is always and only Christianity that is attempted, often with success, to be forced into laws and regulations governing where the vast majority of us live. I can point you to Indian atheist sites that chafe primarily at Hinduism for the same reasons.

4) God is Love? Nice but, sorry to say, trite and easily dismissed aphorism. Love in any meaning you listed is simply a name we give to a function of our brain chemistry that produces pleasant feelings and effects. Nobody rational believes love exists as a distinct separate entity that is conscious, sentient and immanent (able to interact independently with the universe) outside of emotions. If you want to label all the nicer parts of human brain chemistry "god" then go nuts, but you would still, after valid induction, remain an atheist, as it would not be a divinity you were describing, merely the best bits of our biology.

5) The soul? A few atheists may have some hopes or even beliefs in that area but very few. There is no reason for such a thing, no evidence for such a thing, and no gap in our knowledge where such a thing could be a valid hypothesis beyond the wishful thinking that we'd like to be less mortal and less animal than we are. The mind? Again a combination of chemistry and electrical impulses in a few pounds of goo inside our skulls. Antimatter and the 4th dimension? Big difference - there are valid reasons to hypothesize that such things exist (i'm not a physicist of any great merit but IIRC don;t we have actual empirical success isolating antimatter even?) .

6) Nope not all atheists share the same belief about anything, As has been stated we have no creed. Few of them but by no means none have any truck with reincarnation or individual survival post mortem, since they fall into the same type of claim that gods do - unverifiable hopes that are clearly driven from the basic human needs for certainty and comforting reassurance. Dismissing that way of thinking tends to dismiss most/all things based on it.

7) The term "god" is part of the problem. If you narrow the definition to the traditional bearded tyrant in the sky it becomes laughably naive. If you broaden it to the new agey interconnectedness and benevolence of all things it becomes meaningless. It is the theist's responsibility to say what a god is, and then demonstrate its existence. All we do, and all we need to do, is simply reserve belief until they do. The trick for the theist is defining a god that actually remains a separate being distinguishable from nature (if it is not, then what's the difference between god and no god?) while retaining any shred of probability that it is distinct from or more likely than the crudest fertility totem of the stone age with which it always shares the inevitable trait of being completely without evidence.

[gooey]

11. Is it okay if I start with..

"4) God is Love? Nice but, sorry to say, trite and easily dismissed aphorism. Love in any meaning you listed is simply a name we give to a function of our brain chemistry that produces pleasant feelings and effects. Nobody rational believes love exists as a distinct separate entity that is conscious, sentient and immanent (able to interact independently with the universe) outside of emotions. If you want to label all the nicer parts of human brain chemistry "god" then go nuts, but you would still, after valid induction, remain an atheist, as it would not be a divinity you were describing, merely the best bits of our biology."

Now, wouldn't what we call "love" be the stimulant of what we call the "brain chemistry that produces pleasant feelings and effects"? Or do you suppose what we call hormones and chemicals in their own right fire off, so to speak, at will and we are left to their whim?

[dmallind]

13. Nope not really

We are not immune from basic stimulus-response systems. Fear is caused by a stimulus, which drives autonomic biochemical reactions, which creates the nervous agitated feeling, heightened awarenes, increased heart rate, etc that we label "fear". We don't control it. We can't even regulate the response to any meaningful degree. I assume you accept this, and agree that seeing a large man wielding a bloody cleaver at the other end of a dark alley you were walking down would generate this response outside your control (even if he were simply an absent-minded butcher returning to work after a break). Why would love be any different in its mechanics?

[gooey]

22. What I mean to say is.

The external stimulus of the butcher in the alley perceived by the senses is the root cause of the fear which then in turn causes a physical reaction.

[dmallind]

37. It is the stimulus - but the feeling is caused by the physical reaction in your brain.

Not the other way round. You feel fear because of biochemistry. Change the biochemistry and you would not feel fear (PCP etc).

[MineralMan]

14. Sounds like you need a primer on atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Read that, then get back to us.

[stopbush]

17. Agreed. There are many books out there that the OP could read to get up to speed.

I would suggest The Portable Atheist - Selected Readings for the Nonbeliever, a compilation of writings from Lucretius, Spinoza and Hobbes to Einstein, Stenger and Rushdie. Christopher Hitchens selected the writings and provides short intros to each article (available at Amazon for under $10).

While I appreciate the OP asking questions, these type of queries are rarely productive because the religious person doing the asking has no background info on atheism, while the atheists are usually armed to the teeth with knowledge about religion (well, mainly Christianity). This puts the religionist at a distinct disadvantage in the argument, while the atheist tires of rehashing the same base-level talking points yet again.

[MineralMan]

18. I agree. I don't usually participate in this type of thread.

I do, though, refer the OPs of such threads to sources where they can learn. Loaded questions are rarely worth a real response.

[stopbush]

19. Agreed again. Most often, these posts are started by a religious person

who thinks they have come up with a knock-em-dead rebuttal of atheism, ie: something their pastor told them or some ill-formed argument they read at some Xian website.

They then decide to wade into the lion's den to combat the atheists on their own turf, and to be fearless in doing so. They'll argue for a bit, never addressing any of the questions or positions posted by the atheists, but rather, asking more questions and constantly moving the goal posts in the discussion. Eventually, they flee the field, convinced they've taken a bold action "for the lord" and eager to report back to their brethren how they survived the lion's den, and how sorry they feel for the poor, hopeless atheists and what a magnificent victory it was!

In the meanwhile, the atheists debate in good faith, suggest any number of books or sources that the religionist won't read under any circumstances, and go about their day wondering why they seem to get sucked into these faux discussions on a regular basis.

[trotsky]

29. By Koresh, you called it like you've seen it before.

And I'm guessing it's because you, I, and probably 90% of atheists have.

[iris27]

58. For what it's worth, I was once the religious person in this tired scenario, only

I actually did read the books and sources, and from there more books and sources, and more discussion...and the eventual result is that I have been an atheist for the last 6 years.

Sometimes enlightenment is possible if you can get someone to really look at their faith from an outsider's point of view. :)

[TransitJohn]

67. Yeah, it's a lot like

engaging in 'debate' with evolution deniers or human-caused climate change deniers.

[gooey]

24. Thanks

That was very helpful. :)

[rd_kent]

16. Kick

[ZombieHorde]

20. I am an atheist, here is my take on your questions...

"Which definition of God..."

Usually the definition monotheists and polytheists use.

"God is love..."

I don't see any reason to use a different word to describe love, except maybe in a poem. Saying, "I God you" just confuses things.

"idea of the soul"

I don't think people have souls, but people can believe in souls and still be atheists.

"Do all Atheists share the same beliefs on reincarnation and life after death?"

No. I don't believe in reincarnation, but many atheistic Buddhists do believe in reincarnation.

[gooey]

26. So it seems.

Atheist beliefs are as varied as theist. I apologize for my presumptions.

And while the issue is unsettled, I see that this is not a debate which can be had in this type of forum.

Thanks anyway to those of you who responded.

[stopbush]

32. And another religionist flees the field, as I predicted in #19 above.

It's as tiresome as it is predictable.

At least this one didn't last long.

[rd_kent]

42. Run away! Run away! gooey, I fart in your general direction.

[gooey]

50. I've endured much worse.

[rd_kent]

61. yet you still run away....

[Amaya]

30. you sound familiar, gooey

don't you have anything else to do besides debate atheism?

:eyes:

[gooey]

35. Eh.

Actually I do. And I should be doing it. But I guess I needed a mental break. But more importantly.

From my perspective, and although many will protest, atheism seems to be like any other belief in that individuals who identify themselves as such run a wide gamut.

And at the end of the day people believe what they want to believe.

[dmallind]

38. Pretty much - why should it not be?

Atheism is a negative definition (not pejorative but defined by absence). The only thing being an atheist tells you is that you do NOT believe in gods. You can come to that conclusion any number of ways and with any level of intelligence. You can make up your own mind about any number of woo woo subjects. As long as you don't believe in any gods you're an atheist. It's no more a credo, and should be no more a credo, than not playing golf. Being an "agolfist" does not mean you have to dislike closely mown grass and sand, or anything else.

[Iggo]

40. Exactly.

Atheism doesn't have to mean one is against religion or gods, hates gods, or hates the people who believe in gods.

It's essentially just an absence of any belief in gods.

(I like the "agolfist" analogy...very nice.)

[gooey]

45. But is belief not a choice?

[Iggo]

54. What belief?

[dmallind]

66. An interesting question albeit probably not in the way you meant.

Expressing a belief is a choice but the more we know about the brain the more difficult its seems to avoid determinism. I know for sure it would be impossible for me to believe in any gods without evidence and remain sane. My brain just does not work like that. How much of that is prewiring, how much is my exposure to education and reading, and how much is my free will? Buggered if I know.

[rd_kent]

43. You could not be more wrong.

The very thing that unties atheists, and we dont need a congregation to continually pat ourselves on the back, is that we have seen no evidence to support the existence of a god. That, my friend, is a FACT, not a belief, but a FACT. Got it? Good.

Now run on back to mommy and tell her how the atheists were mean to you.......

[Iggo]

31. That was a fun read.

Thanks folks!

[NMMNG]

33. I am an atheist

I don't believe in gods. Any gods. Any of the 2,850+ gods ever dreamed up by humanity. That's all there is to atheism. Nothing more.

If you want to actually learn about atheists and atheism try doing some reading rather than throwing out biased questions and stereotypes.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[GliderGuider]

39. I'm not sure what I am any more.

I've spent my life as a strong (explicit) atheist, and devoted very little energy to my inner life or thoughts of the sacred.

As I age and become a little less concerned about what the world thinks of me, I've realized something interesting. My atheism has been a directed primarily toward deities and religious structures -- the man-made, self-projective, social-control aspects of spirituality. Simultaneously I've realized I feel a strong thirst for some kind of direct experience of the sacred.

As I've explored various ways to slake this thirst I've discovered a huge well-spring of personal value hidden in the mystical cores of many religions. To be clear about what I mean, "mystical" experiences involve a direct personal experience of the sacred, which is usually couched in whatever inner language the mystic brings with them to that experience. In the case of Christian or Sufi mystics, their inner language includes the concepts of God they bring from their religious training, so their experiences express in that language. For Buddhists, Taoists or other non-theistic practitioners, their mystical experiences will not include god-imagery, but are more likely to express themselves in terms of the Absolute, the ground of being, all-that-is, etc.

For someone like me who was brought up in a Western, rationalist, scientific, materialist, atheist household, my mystical imagery tends to be flavoured by quantum physics, depth psychology and Jungian archetypes, and has a strong sense of connecting with my Essential nature, my True Self, the Essence out of which my personality has developed. This sense of Essence leads me to a position that is quite Taoist, in the sense that I feel that all expressions of Essence arises from the ground of Being.

For me, Love is one aspect of the Essence that I am, and insofar as I take that essence to be sacred I can understand the phrase "God is Love". On the other hand, my Essence consists of many more aspects than just Love -- there are Essential aspects of Strength, Will, Peace, Compassion, and Joy, for example. I could equally understand some one saying that "God is" each of these. I see my true self as a diamond composed of all of them, with each of these essential aspects as a facet through which I may view my reality at any moment.

In a sense I consider that Essential "diamond" as my soul. Is it eternal? I have no way of knowing what that word means, because I strongly suspect that linear time is an illusion. To me the diamond feels Absolute, so I guess that's close.

I still call myself an atheist, though, because in the sense that most people understand the term (i.e. lacking belief in a deity) that's what I am. However, for those who equate my sense of the Absolute with "God" then I guess I'm not.

[gooey]

46. I can understand this position completely.

As I myself am still seeking. Although I'm fairly convinced in the immortality of the soul. And as time goes by I become more and more convinced. I'd very much like to be able to talk about this with you outside of this forum.

[uberllama42]

44. "God is Love" is a meaningless statement

If you want to insert the word "God" in place of some other word and argue that whatever that other word usually signifies exists, you've changed the topic of discussion. When I call myself an atheist, I'm not saying anything about love. I'm saying something about gods as anthropomorphic (i.e., personal) entities. I don't see any evidence to support the existence of those gods you listed--Jesus, Zeus, Thor, Brahman, etc.

Of course I believe in charity and compassion and altruism and so forth. But why would you refer to those things as God? If you are moving God out of the realm of the supernatural and equating it with something people experience on a daily basis, you are changing the conversation to be about something completely different. I guess you could refer to love (in the sense of compassion) as God, but why would you want to? Isn't the term "love" good enough?

And what about the idea of the soul.

As for the matter of the soul, I think we can know with reasonable certainty that there is no such thing as a soul. There is no aspect of an individual's personality that is not linked to specific activity in the brain. For all intents and purposes, if a person's brain activity stops, he or she ceases to exist. What, then, would a soul be? Is it a mirror of a person's brain activity in some as-yet-unobserved metaphysical realm? That soul would have to be closely linked to the physical processes in a person's brain while they are alive (otherwise it would have nothing to do with that person's thoughts or emotions) but somehow independent of those processes once the person died.

Furthermore, if humans have souls, it raises the question of whether animals have souls. Do gorillas have souls? What about horses, or chickens, or amoebas, or plants? If only humans have souls, at what point in our evolution did we acquire them? If all animals have souls, what differentiates an animal from a thing (living or non-living) that doesn't have a soul? What exactly is the nature of this things we are referring to as a soul? Under any conception I've encountered, there is no evidence that such a phenomenon exists.

Are these not all something that are made of the immaterial?

What the hell does that mean? As I said, the mind is the construct of physical processes within a person's brain. All of a person's emotions and thoughts are the result of chemical brain reactions. The fourth dimension is a description of time as we experience it. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. Nor does anti-matter. Anti-matter is composed of particles that obey the same physical laws as particles of matter, but have certain opposite properties. The question about "the immaterial" is meaningless because the examples you gave are not immaterial in the same sense of the word. And none of them lend credence to the notion that there is a God, understood as a personal entity.

[gooey]

49. Interesting.

[darkstar3]

52. On the nose. n/t

[caitxrawks]

53. i'm an agnostic atheist. here's strictly my opinions on the matter.

Just so you're aware (and kinda know where I'm approaching this from), I'm 21, female, and I've been an agnostic atheist for about a year and a half now.

Which definition of God are we talking about?
-I tend to think primarily in terms of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic god. (Yes, I'm pretty sure they're all praying to the same fellow.) I guess that's because I was raised as a Christian and I am reminded of Christianity everywhere I go. (I live in the Bible Belt, gag me.)


and is it a personal decision made by each individual Atheist?
-Yep! There's no "holy book" for atheists nor any doctrines to follow. There are agnostic atheists (like me!), pagan atheists, Satanist atheists, militant atheists...there's as many kinds of atheists as there are theists.


But what are your thoughts on the idea of "God is Love"
-I strictly consider the idea of god to be something that's worshiped. While I do believe whole-heartedly in the power of love, I don't think it can be considered 'god'.


And what about the idea of the soul. Do you deny or claim the non-existence of this as well?
-I don't believe in a 'soul' in the Christian sense of the word. If I had to put a meaning to the word, I'd say it's our personality and conscience that makes up the soul. But of course I don't believe that how good or bad your soul is determines any sort of afterlife reward or punishment.


Do all Atheists share the same beliefs on reincarnation and life after death?
-Ohhh no. Not at all. Being an atheist simply means you don't believe in a deity. It doesn't mean that you can't believe in other such supernatural stuff.


Does,"God", for you, include all of these or only some of these? or none of these?
-I think if something MUST be considered god...it would be nature and the universe, sorta like the pantheists believe. They believe that god is not an omniscient being that should necessarily be worshiped, but it's more the idea that everything is made up of the same energy, so therefore we should have reverence and respect towards everything. I like that idea, it's the only idea of 'god' that makes any sort of sense to me.



I hope I gave you some of the answers you were looking for =)

[gooey]

55. Thanks for your reply.

I tend to agree with your statement about god being "something that's worshipped". Makes sense.

[rrneck]

60. You have set for yourself

an impossible task.

You are trying to offer people a reason to believe as you do. You begin by framing your pitch in terms of "...a few gods which most of you can agree on..." when no such agreement exists. Then you offer a god that you think nobody could turn down by conflating him/her/it with a positive emotion. The reality is this: The atheists don't want to play, and you can't make them. Gone are the days when people could be roasted alive for professing the wrong belief. Nowadays, the best you can do is offer a pitch worthy of any used car salesman. And I've got news for you, every religion will try to "control the lives of others through politics and legislation" sooner or later. It's inevitable. Any organization that has to rely on fallacious logic and manipulation to sell people something they've already got will resort to strong arm measures to keep the lights on.

But there is hope. Do you have a vision? Have you experienced a moment of tracscedence and expansiveness that shook you to your very roots? Do you really believe in anything at all? If you do there is no evidence of it.

If you have any real faith in anything you will never really bring anybody to it by being clever. You can only do it by being real. Self awareness takes work, not smart shopping. You will never get anyone to share your way of thinking if you just plucked it off the cultural consumer shelf. Not if they've done the work themselves.

You got something special to share? You want to influence people? Don't persuade them - inspire them.

[gooey]

64. Finally.

Somebody put me in my place. Thank you.

[rrneck]

65. Glad to help.

Now, get back to me when you cultivate some real faith in something.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

68. Dear OP: Buddha is NOT a God.

Buddha was an enlightened person. He is NOT worshipped as a god. That is a misconception of Christians.

It is quite possible to be a Buddhist and an atheist.

Buddhist scriptures are about the nature of reality and illusion, not about God.

[BurtWorm]

70. Is God love? No. Love is love.

I don't need to believe love is a special force worthy of being worshiped.

This thing called God that I don't believe in is a great big invisible 'being' people, claim without being able to say exactly why they believe this, exists and is worthy of being worshiped.

The clossest I come to believing in God is when I consider what Spinoza referred to as God, or Nature. But to me, why call Nature god. Nature is nature. (And it is awesome.)