Atheist opinion polls in America

[Sy Borg]

Excellent post again, Fanman.

There is no doubt that fundamentalists, creationists and those who embrace an anthropomorphic God generally are delusional. Not just atheists would agree with that. Plenty of theists would too.

People can play politically correct post-modern games with the idea of subjective beliefs but let's call a spade a spade - some beliefs are genuinely delusional, no matter what the subjective experience may be.

A beautiful example of delusion vs reality is in this video of the Kiai Master vs an MMA champion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I (if one is sensitive about violence, don't watch). In short, the Kiai master does manoeuvres without touching, using energy to knock over opponents. This was demonstrated on his pupils. So, there he is, doing all his arm wavy things to channel energy against his opponent. The MMA fighter was wary for a while and, once he realised that all the Kiai Master had was arm waving, he simply floored him his one punch. Boom. Over.

That is what happens when "sheltered workshops" of like minded delusionals convince each other that they are the ones who are actually in touch with reality. It all works fine until tested by those who don't buy into hype. If the US thinks that reducing their research and knowledge is the way to compete with the Chinese, then they may find themselves shadow dancing until China simply steps up and casually delivers a knockout punch.

[Eduk]

Nick I did answer your question. I said I didn't know what you meant.

[Dark Matter]

At one time I was like you and thought of brotherhood. It finally sunk into my skull that it is a lost cause since because we are as we are, everything turns in cycles including war and peace. All the platitudes are meaningless. I turned my attention to what can allow a person especially the young with potential to open this supernatural part of themselves to become a normal human being with intellectual and emotional intelligence as opposed to an arguing or frightened animal. The problem is where to find someone who admits the problem to learn from. We have to fight through the experts to find them but it isn’t easy and requires a real need for truth as opposed to self justification

I am a short-term pessimist and a long-term optimist. The short-term looks very bleak indeed for civilization, but over the long-term, perhaps over the next thousand years or so, the understanding that everyone proceeds from the same universal ground of ultimate concern, that what we do unto others we do unto our greater Self, will dominate the same way secularism is dominant now.

This won't be achieved through argument or debate, but by the gradual awakening of minds to what is prior to discriminatory thought, to the reality that is front of our face. There is, and always will be, tension between the stasis of secularism and the dynamism of religion. The former reacts, the latter acts, and they intermingle in a way that can make it difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. That does not mean, however, that they are at odds. They are complementary.

So why the optimism? Call it blind faith or superstition if you like, but I call it insight into the nature of Reality.

[Fooloso4]

Fanman, you have earned my admiration! I think that Greta, Belinda, and whoever else was around for the omniscience paradox topic knows why.

[Dark Matter]

Fanman's post was good even if more than a little biased and superficial. "Man is not a machine that can be remodelled for quite other purposes as occasion demands, in the hope that it will go on functioning as regularly as before but in a quite different way. He carries his whole history with him; in his very structure is written the history of mankind." -- Carl Jung

JUNG ON RELIGION – A SUMMARY OF HIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES AND BELIEF

There is a religious instinct in all human beings – an inherent striving towards a relationship with someone or something that transcends human power (a higher force or being).
Jung’s conviction about the universality of religion led him to view religion as a manifestation of the collective unconscious. Both religious practice and religious experience found their source in the collective unconscious. Religious experience was NUMINOUS (direct contact with the divine) which revealed itself through dreams and visions. Religious practice (rituals and dogmas) were necessary to protect people from the awesome power of such a direct experience of the numinous.

Jung had something to say about the irrationality of religion. Modern people had a near-religious faith in the power of rational thinking and technology. It was a mistake to dismiss religious phenomena because of their irrationality.

The process of INDIVIDUATION was central to Jung’s psychology. This takes place in the second half of life, but, even so, it is not for everybody. In the first half of life, an individual attempts to establish themselves in society (job, house, family), which is the period of the EGO (the hero). But, when the individual has shown their power and mated, perhaps the death of this ‘hero’ is the turning point in life. The ego relinquishes the seat of power and the second-half of life begins. Jung on ReligionPeople who are ‘successful’ and ‘busy’ often neglect the civilisation of the second half of life. But Jung recognises that the process of individuation in a fundamentally religious notion. In the process of INDIVIDUATION, the masks of the self are stripped away to uncover the true self.

The discovery of the self through the process of INDIVIDUATION leads naturally to Jung’s attitude to the notion of God. Jung believed that only by recognising some higher authority than the ego, could a person detach themselves sufficiently from sexuality, the will to power and all the other compulsions of the world. Without a God, a person will make a God out of something else – sex, power or reason itself. Jung writes ‘the soul must contain in itself the faculty of relation to God, i.e. a correspondence, otherwise a connection could never come about. The correspondence is, in psychological terms, the archetype of a God-image.’ (Psychology and Alchemy)

In more general terms, religion can never be replaced by science because it provides the language of the archetypes. The deep patterning in the consciousness, the archetypes (first forms) could only be named in mythological language and religious symbolism of which there is a great abundance across the world’s religious cultures.

Jung on religion and evil – Jung had much to say about the notion of evil. He was very critical of the Church’s doctrine of the privato boni – evil as the absence of good. As to be expected after seeing how Jung tried to cope with his father’s religious crisis, he warns us against trying to be better than we are. Strive not so much for forced ‘goodness’ but for consciousness. Live not out of ideals we cannot keep, but from an inner centre which alone can keep the balance. To strive to be good, and disregard one’s darkness, is to fall victim to the evil in ourselves whose existence we have denied. The ‘shadow’ is Jung’s term for the dark, unwanted, feared side of our personality. The rejected qualities do not cease to exist simply because they have been denied direct expression. They live within us in the form of a secondary personality – the ‘shadow‘. The shadow personality can also be thought of as the unlived life. The devil is a personification of the repressed aspects of the human psyche. Jung wanted to include the shadow in the Godhead. The Trinity needs to be transformed into a Quaternary if we are to speak the wholeness of God.

The figure of Jesus Christ – In Christ, A Symbol of the Self, Jesus Christ exemplifies the archetype of the self. Jung found a ‘perfect’ Christ meaningless. Aion Jung on ReligionIf Christ was perfect, he could not be ‘whole’. To be whole or holy, a person must reintegrate the shadow side of their personality. If the anti-Christ is not recognised within, it will appear externally in a malevolent form. Buddha could also be viewed as a symbol of the self – Christ saved the world through sacrifice, Buddha through inner peace.

Jung believed that the deepest urge within every living creature was to fulfil itself. Religion is essential for true sanity. -- Amy Trumpter

THE MADMAN

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" -- As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? -- Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -- for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves. --Friedrich Nietzsche, The Parable of the Madman (1882)

I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. - - Carl Jung

I refuse to believe that humankind is forever trapped on the hamster wheel of his own making.

[Fanman]

Thanks Greta I agree with what you say, and thanks F4,

It means a lot to me that I've improved your opinions of me. As a theist, I've been a fundamentalist, ignoring the “hits” of reason and logic in favour of holding my beliefs and somewhat warped ideas. Indeed, I think that beliefs can (and do) “corrupt” the individual to the point of them developing certain acute mentalities depending how deeply they're entrenched in it. Which includes, claiming "divine" or transcendent knowledge, them vs us, a distrust of science and the application of warped logic in attempts to squeeze an anthropomorphic God into reality, in which it doesn't fit. I'm not saying that all beliefs encounter these issues, but Christianity tends to have a huge cognitive impact. As such, breaking free from my beliefs was like performing a reformatting of my mind and it feels quite liberating. Whereby, I came to understand that the foundations of religion and belief are tenuous at best and nonsense at worst.

I don't want to call out DM, but he stated that religion was “dynamic,” but for so many reasons religion is a static entity, buried in tradition, control, exploitation and superstition. How can the immutable also be dynamic? An 'unchanging dynamism' seems like an oxymoron. In what sense is religion dynamic? The foundations of religion are not even real (the theist cannot argue that all religions are real). If God created the earth 6000 years ago and in six days, why is there evidence to the contrary that the earth is far, far older than that? No doubt theists will ride over such logical contradictions, but is does them a disservice in my opinion. I think that critical thinking applied to any belief system will eventually dispel the faith held in it.

[Dark Matter]

How can the immutable also be dynamic?

Religion is immutable? How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Or were you referring to God? Infinity implies immutability, but it does not imply immobility. You said, "An 'unchanging dynamism' seems like an oxymoron." Perhaps, but are you the same you when you were 12?

If Jung is right, and there is no reason to believe he isn't, atheism is a kind of insanity; if Nietzsche right, and the atheists here seem to think he is, then the 'lightning and thunder" has yet to come to its complete fruition. In spite of the horrors of World Wars I and II, this godless philosophy of human society will lead only to more unrest, animosity, unhappiness, war, and world-wide disaster. And they called this the "sanity of critical thinking."

Sometimes, I think there in nothing to do but sit back, relax and be entertained by the unfoldment of this comedy of horrors.

There is no trustworthy standard by which we can separate the “real” from the “unreal” aspects of phenomena. Such standards as exist are conventional: and correspond to convenience, not to truth. It is no argument to say that most men see the world in much the same way, and that this “way” is the true standard of reality: though for practical purposes we have agreed that sanity consists in sharing the hallucinations of our neighbours. Those who are honest with themselves know that this “sharing” is at best incomplete. By the voluntary adoption of a new conception of the universe, the fitting of a new alphabet to the old Morse code—a proceeding which we call the acquirement of knowledge—we can and do change to a marked extent our way of seeing things: building up new worlds from old sense impressions, and transmuting objects more easily and thoroughly than any magician. “Eyes and ears,” said Heracleitus, “are bad witnesses to those who have barbarian souls”: and even those whose souls are civilized tend to see and hear all things through a temperament. In one and the same sky the poet may discover the habitation of angels, whilst the sailor sees only a promise of dirty weather ahead. Hence, artist and surgeon, Christian and rationalist, pessimist and optimist, do actually and truly live in different and mutually exclusive worlds, not only of thought but also of perception. Only the happy circumstance that our ordinary speech is conventional, not realistic, permits us to conceal from one another the unique and lonely world in which each lives. Now and then an artist is born, terribly articulate, foolishly truthful, who insists on “Speaking as he saw.” Then other men, lapped warmly in their artificial universe, agree that he is mad: or, at the very best, an “extraordinarily imaginative fellow.” -- Evelyn Underhill

[Lucylu]

I had a Jehovah's witness knock on my door today. You don't see atheists knocking on people's doors trying to spread the word. Personally I think the assumption that my soul needs to be saved as if I am inferior and ignorant is much more offensive than an atheist's assumption that a given religion is nonsense.

I may be wrong, but I think that by definition, the atheist (rightly or wrongly) views the theist as delusional.

It is a funny one. The person may be technically classed as sane, and be able to function very well in all areas of life, yet they can simultaneously hold completely illogical beliefs, that nonetheless have an internal consistency. Look at Tom Cruise for example. I'm convinced that focusing on the ideas espoused by some parts of religion, creates an endorphin response in the brain, and its that that becomes addictive.

It is very strange that some murderers are classed as terrorists, as if this is a sort of excuse, like it gives it credence. And in court, we are still asked to swear on the bible. How can we call ourselves secular?

I think society is still very much held back by religion and religious institutions, like for example in the lack of action regarding end of life care, and assisted suicide. The amount of pain that's causing is obscene yet its still taboo to take control of death. I'm sure there are lingering superstitions surrounding this, as if its supposed to be in the hands of God and that life is 'sacred'. So I do get more than a little peeved at religious folk who cherish life over quality of life and then praise themselves for being such good people.

[Eduk]

Dark matter we are talking cross purposes. A lot of people's comments could be applied to Christianity or many other religions. Some of the comments you agree do apply to other religions. Indeed you seem critical of all religions? Except your own?
What is your religion? What properties does your God have? What tests would falsify your beliefs?
You mention God is infinite I think? What does that mean in practical terms? Is God a being? Does God have a purpose for humans? How do you know? How can you prove it?
Please try to be specific. Infinity for example is undefined. A physical object cannot be infinite.
How can you draw conclusions from something that can't be defined? Do any laws of logic apply? Like law of contradiction?
We are asking for a logical discussion. You may be unwilling to participate. Preferring your different definitions of words. Your different laws of logic. But in that case surely communication is impossible?
Your only realistic choice is to demonstrate your beliefs. Make a God powered computer, or anything. Any single practical thing of use that no one else can do. That is what the true genius must do.

[Fanman]

DM,

Religion is immutable? How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Or were you referring to God? Infinity implies immutability, but it does not imply immobility. You said, "An 'unchanging dynamism' seems like an oxymoron." Perhaps, but are you the same you when you were 12?

Religions are based upon the proposal that an immutable God exists, and that that God has given us instructions that we must follow in order be acting according to it's will. God's will cannot be altered or added to, therefore religions that have arisen as according to "God's will" cannot be changed as no one has the authority to do so. If I am wrong in this respect, please tell me a religion that has changed and how it has changed. What are the dynamic aspects of religion? I don't think that infinity implies immutability, as during any scale of time, even an infinite amount of time, things can change and do. I'm not immutable – therefore I change as I get older. If God doesn't change then in a respect it is a static entity. I don't think that God can be both the (static) immovable object and the (dynamic) irresistible force, it must be one or the other, and since God is purported as being immutable, then it must surely be the immovable object, the “rock” upon which faith is based.

If Jung is right, and there is no reason to believe he isn't, atheism is a kind of insanity; if Nietzsche right, and the atheists here seem to think he is, then the 'lightning and thunder" has yet to come to its complete fruition. In spite of the horrors of World Wars I and II, this godless philosophy of human society will lead only to more unrest, animosity, unhappiness, war, and world-wide disaster. And they called this the "sanity of critical thinking."

Why must this be the case? Religion and Secularism are both prone to the drawbacks of human nature. Whether God is in the machine or not, the failings you mention are present. I don't think that atheism is a kind of insanity, how so? Atheism doesn't reject facts, in favour of things which cannot be proven or falsified. Atheism is an evidence based position and therefore rational. Due to the fact that you see through the lens of belief, I can understand why you would view critical thinking as something detrimental, as it surely is damaging to archaic, religious belief systems. The failings you mention are not, I think, due to critical thinking, but due to intolerance and a lack of empathy. If you look at the history of religion, both intolerance and lack of empathy are prominent features. My point is, that religion is just as prone to failures as secularism, but secularism has the ability to admit it's mistakes and try to fix them by enacting fundamental change. On paper, secularism is a “bottom-up” model. The “top-down” nature of religion makes it impossible to change, it rectifies it's problems by switching people in and out, not by reformation starting from the top, it cannot do that, because at the top of religion is an immutable God. For that reason and others, I think that religion is something best pursued on a personal basis.

Sometimes, I think there in nothing to do but sit back, relax and be entertained by the unfoldment of this comedy of horrors.

When you say a "comedy of horrors," one of the things that springs to mind is the catholic church.

---

Lucylu,

I pretty much agree with you. I think don't think that religion should have any political authority. Too many of it's tenets are backwards thinking, hence they're anachronistic. Society doesn't need religion in its upper echelons, I think it needs diversity and open-minded opinion. Religion should be something that is pursued on a personal basis. Religion is a doctrine, but it should be a philosophy. The authority of an all powerful God, imputed through people with their own agendas can only lead to disaster in my opinion.

[Sy Borg]

I am a short-term pessimist and a long-term optimist. The short-term looks very bleak indeed for civilization, but over the long-term, perhaps over the next thousand years or so, the understanding that everyone proceeds from the same universal ground of ultimate concern, that what we do unto others we do unto our greater Self, will dominate the same way secularism is dominant now.

This won't be achieved through argument or debate, but by the gradual awakening of minds to what is prior to discriminatory thought, to the reality that is front of our face. There is, and always will be, tension between the stasis of secularism and the dynamism of religion. The former reacts, the latter acts, and they intermingle in a way that can make it difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. That does not mean, however, that they are at odds. They are complementary.

So why the optimism? Call it blind faith or superstition if you like, but I call it insight into the nature of Reality.

Secularism is far from static. Its gradual emergence over the last few thousand years is littered with one revolution of thinking after another. Many theists complain that secularism's dynamism lacks the solid grounding of religion's stability (ie. relative stasis).

However, I suspect this is largely a matter of words - that spirituality (not religion) is active while secularism is passive. The difference between them is akin to the difference between gonzo and conventional journalism, method acting and conventional role play, performing or being an audience member. In spirituality YOU are the star of the show! YOU are The One, the one who matters! The dynamic runs from the inside outwards - one's emanations while secular thought tends to run more from the outside inwards, the absorption of impressions. As you suggest, the divisions are not hard ones with the dynamics closely intertwined.

So, in cosmology you are a bit of animated carbon and water on the surface of a smallish rocky planet orbiting a main sequence star etc. By contrast with the humility forced on us by what we observe of nature's scope and grandeur, in spirituality, just patting a small, lonely dog during a period of life change can be a significant event - not just "subjective", "trivial" or "anecdotal" but genuinely matter ... at least it matters on the spiritual stage where the self continues with its starring performance :)

I am a big fan of spirituality but have no fondness for parasitic organised religions sucking on our tax dollars and interfering with governance. I increasingly would like to see the concepts parsed by the greater community, but it's perhaps a pipe dream in my lifetime.

-- Updated 20 May 2017, 20:43 to add the following --

Thanks Greta I agree with what you say, and thanks F4,

It means a lot to me that I've improved your opinions of me. As a theist, I've been a fundamentalist, ignoring the “hits” of reason and logic in favour of holding my beliefs and somewhat warped ideas. Indeed, I think that beliefs can (and do) “corrupt” the individual to the point of them developing certain acute mentalities depending how deeply they're entrenched in it.

Heh, we all have our mea culpas and awakenings. I am embarrassed by my "contribution" to the omnipotence thread mentioned by Fooloso - the smug contemptuousness and disrespect I too often indulged in at the time. Far too too often I failed to read between the lines, being more interested in trying to sound clever [sic] or gain approval [sic] than working to understand what others most want to get across.

That's life, eh? Always tweaking, refining, becoming more ourselves. Ditto the Earth and the universe generally, it seems. We are all streaming into the future, followed closely by a trail of our prior blunderings :)

[Dark Matter]

Religions are based upon the proposal that an immutable God exists, and that that God has given us instructions that we must follow in order be acting according to it's will. God's will cannot be altered or added to, therefore religions that have arisen as according to "God's will" cannot be changed as no one has the authority to do so. If I am wrong in this respect, please tell me a religion that has changed and how it has changed. What are the dynamic aspects of religion? I don't think that infinity implies immutability, as during any scale of time, even an infinite amount of time, things can change and do. I'm not immutable – therefore I change as I get older. If God doesn't change then in a respect it is a static entity. I don't think that God can be both the (static) immovable object and the (dynamic) irresistible force, it must be one or the other, and since God is purported as being immutable, then it must surely be the immovable object, the “rock” upon which faith is based.

Thank you for that. I have a much better understanding of why Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge.

However, I yet have to understand why it is so difficult to skeptics pay little or no attention to the things being said. For example, you arguments still assume God is a being alongside other being and I have many times pointed out that we can see the evolution of God in the Bible, from little more than a tribal deity to a Universal Father.

Why must this be the case? Religion and Secularism are both prone to the drawbacks of human nature.

Here is a third example of ignoring things that are being said. I said, "There is, and always will be, tension between the stasis of secularism and the dynamism of religion. The former reacts, the latter acts, and they intermingle in a way that can make it difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. That does not mean, however, that they are at odds. They are complementary." And I quoted Jung: "Man is not a machine that can be remodelled for quite other purposes as occasion demands, in the hope that it will go on functioning as regularly as before but in a quite different way. He carries his whole history with him; in his very structure is written the history of mankind." It is structure that is written the history of mankind that evolves.

Whether God is in the machine or not, the failings you mention are present. I don't think that atheism is a kind of insanity, how so? Atheism doesn't reject facts, in favour of things which cannot be proven or falsified. Atheism is an evidence based position and therefore rational. Due to the fact that you see through the lens of belief, I can understand why you would view critical thinking as something detrimental, as it surely is damaging to archaic, religious belief systems. The failings you mention are not, I think, due to critical thinking, but due to intolerance and a lack of empathy. If you look at the history of religion, both intolerance and lack of empathy are prominent features. My point is, that religion is just as prone to failures as secularism, but secularism has the ability to admit it's mistakes and try to fix them by enacting fundamental change. On paper, secularism is a “bottom-up” model. The “top-down” nature of religion makes it impossible to change, it rectifies it's problems by switching people in and out, not by reformation starting from the top, it cannot do that, because at the top of religion is an immutable God. For that reason and others, I think that religion is something best pursued on a personal basis.

You sound like a romantic.

Interesting. You say that I see through the lens of belief and then argue the belief -- and it is a belief -- that atheism is rational. You see the ocean's surface and believe you study the ocean's depths. Sorry, but I don't see that as rational.

-- Updated May 21st, 2017, 5:21 am to add the following --

But I do agree that religion is best pursued on a personal basis.

[Fanman]

Great comments people.

Greta,

I cringe when I read the “I am God thread” (and others ) I'd rather forget about my "contribution" to be honest. That said, I think the best we can hope for is to learn from our mistakes and better ourselves. It would be nice if growth and development came with growing pains, but such is the nature of the human condition. Brilliant post by the way, you've brought to light the way we (humans) are viewed by different schools of thought very well. In an empirical sense, we are mere specks blinking in and out of existence, but in the spiritual sense We ARE incredibly important with great value and significance. Its an incredible existential dynamic - very interesting.

---

DM,

That's an excellent post. Perhaps I need to pay more attention to what you're saying, or refine my interpretation skills.

However, I yet have to understand why it is so difficult to skeptics pay little or no attention to the things being said. For example, you arguments still assume God is a being alongside other being and I have many times pointed out that we can see the evolution of God in the Bible, from little more than a tribal deity to a Universal Father.

I think what you say here is correct. Although I don't agree with what you say about skeptics. The concept of God has evolved through the ages, he/it is now considered by many as the Universal Father, from his origins as Divine Creator.

Interesting. You say that I see through the lens of belief and then argue the belief -- and it is a belief -- that atheism is rational. You see the ocean's surface and believe you study the ocean's depths. Sorry, but I don't see that as rational.

It is my belief that atheism is rational, I don't argue that point. There may be some intelligent creative force that is responsible for existence I don't know, but I think that from the purview of what we currently know about existence/reality atheism is rational. There is no compelling reason (I'm aware of) for someone without spiritual beliefs to believe in God, and by compelling in this sense I mean empirical. I don't believe that I know or study the “ocean's depths” I am quite aware that I'm only aware of the “ocean's surface.” In the context of this discussion, I don't think that anyone can be certain about the ocean's depths as that is the area of mind-and-spirit, where hard/accurate knowledge is extremely hard (maybe impossible) to ascertain.

I don't think that religion is inherently evil or anything like that, but it is divisive. It can be used for evil in the wrong hands, giving arbitrary power to people who can use it for personal gain or worse. I genuinely believe that religion followed on a personal basis can lead to spiritual growth.

[Felix]

Fanman: There is no compelling reason (I'm aware of) for someone without spiritual beliefs to believe in God, and by compelling in this sense I mean empirical.

Not compelling to you because you (apparently) cannot leave the bounds of logical thought. But to someone whose experience of Life is unitive, who doesn't feel a sense of separation from life, "God" is a way of being, not a belief system.

[Eduk]

Which God? And why?