If there are, indeed, gods that are omnipotent,

[MineralMan]

why would they need humans to punish blasphemers and sacrilegious persons? I've never understood this. Cannot those deities smite those people themselves? If Allah is so freaking Akhbar, why does he need some French Muslims to shoot up an office? Can Allah not send a bolt of lightning or some such thing for himself?

My conclusion is that deities are just figments of human imagination. That's the logical conclusion, I think. If, indeed, that is the case, there is no blasphemy or sacrilege.

[rogerashton]

1. Vengeance is mine, saith The Lord. eom

[jwirr]

54. And at least one God discribed that way also speaks of the free will of mankind.

[3catwoman3]

2. You speak for me, MineralMan.

And a corollary question - why would an all powerful supreme being need adulation from from puny little flesh and blood humans. Seems awfully petty and not very omnipotent. God made in man's image, rather than the oft quoted opposite.

[MineralMan]

5. Yup.

[KittyWampus]

3. Well, you miss the easy answer which is humans are the gods' agents on earth.

Or the "eyes of the world".

[MineralMan]

4. That's silly.

It makes no sense at all. Sorry.

[Fumesucker]

23. It doesn't make sense to you because you have no spiritual feelings

To the religious it makes perfect sense.

I'm reminded of this old story..

A man is on his porch during a flood and a woman comes by in a boat and offers him a spot. He says, “No, God will save me.” The water rises and he moves to the second level of his house and another boat comes by with several people in it, and they offer him the ride as well. “No, God will save me.” Finally, he has to move to the roof and a helicopter comes by and drops a ladder. He waves it away and says, “No, God will save me.” Suddenly a rush of water comes by and the man drowns. He goes to Heaven and sees God and says, “I believed you would save me! Why did you forsake me?” And God says, “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?!”

[phil89]

42. "Spritual feelings"?

How exactly do you define that? And why do you think you know whether other people have them? Bizarre.

[Fumesucker]

50. I have read a lot of MM's posts and am familiar with his philosophy, one we largely share

If you read his reply to me you'll see I was correct.

[MineralMan]

48. Well, I don't believe that "spirits" exist either.

So, I guess I don't have any "spiritual feelings." I seem to be doing fine without them, whatever they might be.

[Fumesucker]

49. I don't have those feelings either

But a lot of people who do have them think that the story I related is how God works, through humans on our planet.

[MineralMan]

51. A lot of people think a lot of things.

It's a diverse population on this planet. I try to think for myself, though. I'm an atheist, but I have no particular animosity toward religions, generally. I do have animosity toward those who use religion as an excuse for inexcusable behavior, though.

I react to actions, not thoughts. If someone can believe in deities, I'm fine with that. If, however, they believe that their belief entitles them to treat others badly, then I'm not fine with that.

It's all pretty simple. I treat people as individuals and think about them as individuals. It is behavior, not belief, that determines my opinions of individuals.

[Fumesucker]

52. Beliefs to a big extent determine behavior

Tell me what someone's beliefs are and I can make a much better estimate of what their behavior is likely to be.

[MineralMan]

53. Religious beliefs are as complicated as the religions that engender them.

Again, I measure people by actions, not beliefs, since I'm not able to determine people's beliefs. One can be a Christian and hold a very broad range of beliefs, indeed, just for one example. So, simply knowing that a person professes Christianity is no indication of how that person will behave. A Christian might be a Quaker or a member of the KKK. Mere Christianity is not a predictor of anything at all.

I try hard not to predict anyone's behavior in advance of that behavior. I'm not competent to make such predictions. Only by observation can I determine how someone behaves.

One person at a time, after observation. For most people, I will never know how they will behave, and that's fine with me. But, I do not use religious belief as a predictor of future behavior. I've not found any correlation that is useful.

[KittyWampus]

55. who cares if you think it's silly. It's an alternative you didn't mention in the OP.

And the concept more refined is- we are a more highly evolved consciousness that mirror and express universal laws.

Which is not silly at all and more a simple statement of fact.

[MineralMan]

56. Probably nobody. I'm not required to mention any particular alternatives

in my OPs. I am not an agent of any so-called higher power. The only "universal laws" are the laws of physics, in my opinion, and we are bound by those. It is that which prevents me from believing that any entities that do not follow those laws actually exist.

Your beliefs might differ from mine. That's your deal, not mine.

Bottom line: if I think something is silly, I will say so. You're welcome to ignore things that I say, at your pleasure.

[KittyWampus]

60. Except you begin your OP with a question and I provided the most simplistic answer

But over the years I have realized that philosophy and metaphysics are not a strong suit for many DU'ers.

Especially those who call themselves "atheists".

And just for the record I would be labelled either atheist or pantheist.

I do not believe in a personage external to humanity who is 'god'.

[MineralMan]

61. Many simplistic things are silly.

I call things as I see them.

Your beliefs are your concern, and none of mine.

[phil89]

44. Not an easy

answer unless you can provide evidence for the god.

[Orrex]

66. Which means, of course, that the proposed god isn't omnipotent

If the god needs humans to serve as its agents, then the god isn't omnipotent.

If the god doesn't need humans but instead simply decides to have them serve as its agents, then we must ask why any god would do this, and why such a god would be worthy of worship.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. There could be an omnipotent god, but logically, there can't be multiple omnipotent godS

Your point stands, and it's a good point, but I was weighing in on the definition of omnipotence.

[MineralMan]

8. Of course there can be multiple omnipotent deities.

As long as they get along with each other, no problem. Many religions have multiple deities. They're all non-existent and imaginary, but they can be omnipotent, as far as I'm concerned. They have nothing to do with me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. I'm letting it go, becuase it's off-topic, but we do have different definitions of omnipotence. nt

[MineralMan]

12. Perhaps. But if all those deities get along,

they can all do anything and everything, and then get together for a couple of beers and brag about it.

[Baclava]

7. the olde gods required sacrifices to appease their anger

Lightning bolts and fire from the sky, we understood that,

now all these new gods on the block come around with their fancy stories and we're supposed to choose


meh, I don't know, maybe Ba'al has the answers

[MineralMan]

10. Ba'al, Schma'al.

All figments of the imagination carved in stone. I scoff at Ba'al, and all his ilk.

[Baclava]

19. You're on the list buddy

his minions told me to tell you that

I keep connections with all the olde timers - - just in case

[MineralMan]

20. I'm cowering under my bed, now.

[Baclava]

34. showing some humility finally, well, that might keep you safe for awhile if you avert your eyes

I'd stay away from the vicinity of places like Vesuvius for now though, just to be sure

[belzabubba333]

11. deities are just figments of human imagination" people see what they want to see

[MineralMan]

13. Or what they imagine they see...

[panader0]

14. A quote from Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

[MineralMan]

16. A clever lad, that Epicurus.

[elleng]

32. VERY good,

and that sums up my thinking; just took all these years to see it so well summed up. THANK YOU!

[belzabubba333]

37. oh good a person trying to define god

[KittyWampus]

57. what is any evil but a misjudgment. Or a missing the mark.

Therefore, while one might ideally prevent all misjudgments and mistakes that is how we learn and grow.

[Scout]

89. great post!

thank you.

[MohRokTah]

15. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. eom

[MineralMan]

17. Indeed.

[MohRokTah]

18. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

You can blaspheme the old ones or not as you choose. It matters not in the end, Cthulhu will still eat you.

[MineralMan]

22. I hope he gets indigestion, then.

[MohRokTah]

24. There is one great benefit to being a follower of Cthulhu

You get to be eaten first.

All hail the unholy Necronomicon.

[3catwoman3]

31. I confess ignorance.

Can you please tell me what language this is? Thank you.

[MohRokTah]

35. "In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming"

It's from a fictitious set of horror stories begun by H. P. Lovecraft and continued by many others through the years. There was even a fictitious grimoire that is talked about in the literature called the Necronomicon that has been recreated by other authors. Unfortunately, some idiots have adopted one or more of these fictitious works as actual unholy texts and take them seriously, even though the entire milieu is fictitious.

[3catwoman3]

39. Rather like learning to speak...

...Klingon. Interesting. I am not a big fan of horror, which would explain why I did not recognize this.

[MohRokTah]

41. I've always been more of a Sci-Fi and Fantasy Fic fan.

But the Cthulhu mythos of Lovecraft and the others caught my attention early and, other than Steven King and Brian Lumley, are some of the few in the Horror genre I read, though most of those works fit well within fantasy and/or sci-fi.

[demigoddess]

21. agree with you. 100%

Also why do they have to pray? I would think and omnipotent god would not even be paying attention to what we do. Maybe he is in another universe creating more worlds.

[MohRokTah]

26. An omnipotent god would know what you were going to pray...

before you were even born.

[treestar]

63. Maybe God is not totally omnipotent

and is fighting other forces themselves. Human nature requires some omnipotence somewhere, but it may be at another level.

[MohRokTah]

64. Occam's Razor would suggest a different tack.

Reject the notion of a god so long as there is no evidence to suggest a god.

[treestar]

74. There is some evidence

In the fact we don't know how we all got here. There's some mystery about why we are here in the first place.

[MohRokTah]

77. That is not evidence. eom

[cleanhippie]

90. You think that is evidence of a god?

Not knowing or understanding something (yet) isn't evidence of anything at all.

Your assertion is absurd.

[treestar]

93. Religion isn't based on evidence

Ask any religious person, they will admit there is no proof.

One cannot prove whether or not there is a God, which is the whole point.

Scientists can be religious. They'd know what there is that can't be known. There's some point where science cannot explain, and that area is always there.

[cleanhippie]

98. Your words: "There is some evidence"

[MineralMan]

71. No. Human nature has no such requirements.

We are taught that we need that. We learn many things, and many of the things we learn are baseless.

[treestar]

75. You'll never stop people wondering about how we got here

And science does not explain that. It's human nature to wonder about things. That's how science developed.

Even the Big Bang doesn't explain just what was there before. You'll never get people to stop thinking about that. Like any other issue, just not happening.

[MineralMan]

79. That's never my goal. I think people should wonder about many things.

However, science does a pretty good job of explaining evolution as the way humans came to be. A spectacular job, really. However, to really understand that explanation requires some study and comprehension of some pretty complex science. I understand the explanation, and can't think of any other explanation that makes anywhere near as much sense.

The Big Bang is a theory, but a theory that has some pretty substantial evidence behind it. Understanding what the Big Bang theory really says, though, is far more difficult than understanding evolution. It requires substantial study to get to the fundamentals that support that theory. I don't understand everything about that, despite a number of years of reading. However, I do understand how the theory was derived, even if the complexity is somewhat too advanced for me. Again, right now, there's not another explanation that comes close to making as much sense.

It's easy to say that such theories are just "theories," and to shrug them off without understanding what lies beneath those theories. It's even easier to say, "God did it," without exploring anything at all. While that explanation worked OK for much of human history, it's not so effective today, since we now know much more than we did in the past.

I wonder about many things. When I do, I head to the library or, today, to the internet. I do my best to learn what people are saying about those things, and then examine the logic that supports their ideas. Frankly, I find no logic whatever in religious explanations. Since they're all based on the undemonstrated proposition that there are omnipotent supernatural entities that can do things outside of the laws of physics, I'm afraid I must reject them out of hand.

Your mileage may differ.

[treestar]

95. I can live with not having all the answers

There may or may not be a God, but since I can't prove it either way, I'm not going to be dogmatic about it. If people believe in God, I'm not going to dismiss them as simplistic and supernatural and magical, because that's not what it is.

[RobertEarl]

25. Here's GOD

G eneration and then
O rganization of
D irt

First there was dirt. Then there was organization of that dirt into lifeforms. Lifeforms like us. And trees, and stuff.

In a quest to define what force it was that did this generating and organizing, man did indeed come up with this idea of GOD. The deities are a mere figment.

Then they took that figment and generated a manifestation that people could organize around. And make money off of, and use as a weapon to smite others.

[MohRokTah]

27. Atheists only believe in one less god than monotheists. eom

[cwydro]

28. K and R. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. The whole idea of an "omnipotent" deity unable to protect itself is as absurd as the people who

think it necessary to do so.

[elleng]

30. They wouldn't, MM,

which recognition led me to agnosticism at an early age: I'll believe it if/when I see it.

Our humanity mandates our behavior thus: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. SIMPLE!

[3catwoman3]

36. If everyone could bring themselves to follow the "Golden Rule"...

...we would not need any other rules. That one covers most situations I can think of.

[elleng]

38. Absolutely, 3cat.

[3catwoman3]

45. It is what I taught our sons when they were young boys.

I decided to "home church" them, so to speak, so their developing minds would not be brainwashed into thinking there was only lens through which to view the world. I trusted the public schools to teach them the "3 Rs" and the rest of the academic basics, but did not trust traditional religious educators. It was crucial to me that they grow up to be open-minded to wisdom from many places.

It worked out well. At 22 and 24, they are decent and principled young men who are sensitive and compassionate.

[MohRokTah]

43. Sadly, most modern interpretations of the "Golden Rule"...

can be described as "He who has the gold makes the rules".

[Avalux]

33. 'God' is everywhere and part of everything.

Even so, 'God' doesn't interfere - kind of like Switzerland. We people with our thinking brains choose to do what we consider to be good or bad. It's really up to us. If 'God' is keeping score, we get a big fat "F" so far in our existence.

[Sweet Freedom]

40. And why continue with this failed experiment?

If God created us and gave us free will, etc., then you'd think that at some point the unending hate, pain, torture and death inflicted upon millions of innocent people would be enough to declare the experiment an utter failure that should be abandoned.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

46. Perhaps all the deities are purely evil and just like

fucking with weaker creatures?

[Major Nikon]

47. If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.

― Edmond de Goncourt

[treestar]

58. Not really proof of no god

So much as of man's interpretation.

We know any god who does exist allows suffering. That said god would not allow suffering is not exclusive with a god's existence.

God tests us, or works in mysterious ways, to believers.

No one really knows whether or not there are powers beyond our ability to comprehend. Well, there are, and to that we assign the idea of God. Ancient people needed some reason for thunder and lightning or other uncomfortable things. The gods, or that which they could not understand, were angry.

[MineralMan]

59. I never try to prove a negative.

It's like dividing by zero. It causes a hard crash in my brain. Lacking any evidence that deities exist, I conclude that they do not.

I do not believe in supernatural entities or events. I cannot. If you can, that's fine with me. But I do not.

[treestar]

62. It' kind of relative though

Had you lived in 3000 B.C., you might have a different perspective. It is natural to humans to wonder about that which science has not totally explained yet. The question of that is the most interesting. Science may not be able to explain all, so there is always something left to wonder about. Things now explainable were once supernatural.

[MineralMan]

68. Not really. I don't live in 3000 BC.

I don't expect everything to be explained, either. I'm quite comfortable with the knowledge that I don't know everything. I don't need to. I'm always interested in new scientific information, but it's not necessary for me to understand that natural laws explain the natural world. Since I've seen no evidence of anything outside of that natural world, I see no need to look for such things.

I'm part of that natural world, and understand enough of the laws of physics to be completely comfortable with my place in it. I recognize that, like all animals, my lifespan is limited in time. That's just fine. I was born, I live, and I will die. In the interim, I find much to be interested in and to explore. It's all more than enough for me.

I feel fortunate to live when I do. Much is understood. More, really, than I have the capacity to learn. So far I haven't seen anything that counters my view that the world I inhabit is governed by natural laws, not supernatural hocus-pocus. That's very comforting to me. At age 69, I can envision the time when I will no longer inhabit this planet. That's OK. By then, I'll be tired and weak and ready to have it all end for me. I have no need for anything more than that.

Your beliefs might be different from mine. That's just fine.

[treestar]

76. Some people will wonder why we're all here

You'll not be able to stop that.

There wouldn't be any science had people not tried to explain the things they did not understand in 3000 B.C., either. Maybe there were people then too who said well, I'm fine with not understanding that.

People have had religions for ages, and it cannot be eradicated, as there will always be something unexplained.

[MineralMan]

81. See, I'm not trying to eradicate religion.

If simplistic, magical, supernatural explanations satisfy people, then they're welcome to them. They don't satisfy me. They are not based on evidence, nor is the logic that supports them anything but circular. So, religion doesn't do it for me. The more I learn, the more I know. The more I know, the more I wonder about different things than I wondered about before.

Why are we all here? See, I don't think that's really a valid question. We are clearly here. We can pretty thoroughly describe how we got here. Why we're here is a question without an answer. I don't wonder about that. It's irrelevant to me. We are here because we are here.

A number of years ago, someone arguing with me about my atheism asked me, "Well, who created you?" I explained that my parents had sex sometime around Halloween in 1944. Roughly nine months later, I was born in the same way every human on this planet was born. That's how I was created and who created me. I'm the product of a genetic merging of information from both of my parent. No further explanation is required about my creation. It's all very well understood.

[treestar]

94. It is not simplistic and magical

Those terms are dismissive of what people will wonder about, that you can't stop them from wondering about. And they always have.

You may not think the question "valid" but no one else really cares. They will still wonder about that question. Must be frustrating that you can't really answer it. The question is not why am I here (yeah we know how your parents had sex, so what, so did everyone else's, and some IV cases?) but why is the whole shebang here?

[MineralMan]

96. There's no need for a reason for existence.

Existence simply is. Why do you need a reason for it? I don't get that at all.

Dismissive? Not really. Descriptive is more like it.

[backscatter712]

65. Virtually all the big religions have defense mechanisms...

One of the most common mechanisms is making the deity a nasty, jealous, humorless prick that will torture you for all eternity for the crime of making fun of him.

For thousands of years, religions have perfected the art of making any criticism of them a severe violation of social norms, into an obscenity that is deserving of the death penalty. What crime did the Pharisees accuse Jesus of committing? Blasphemy, so they got Pontius Pilate to crucify him (to be fair, the Romans most likely had Jesus killed for sedition against the Roman Empire). Look at the Spanish Inquisition - torture and executions and barbarism done in the name of the Prince of Peace. And look at what happened yesterday - killing cartoonists for the crime of insulting a religion.

Religions will always have elements that seek to exercise the harshest and most barbaric punishments against even their mildest critics.

Basic Politics 101 - powerful people and groups will do just about anything to protect their power.

[MineralMan]

69. Indeed, and that's the cause of much pain and suffering.

I don't subscribe to any of that.

[chrisa]

67. Because people have the ability to just make more stuff up to fit their narrative.

1: God is omnipotent, but it's our job to punish blasphemers!

2: Why? Couldn't God just do that if it's omnipotent?

1: Well, God leaves that up to us because he decided to give humans free will.

2: That makes no sense. Are you saying that God gave humans free will, but he orders them around hoping that they'll listen? Why would he do that? Why not just remove humans' ability to blaspheme if it's something God doesn't want.

1: God is testing us...

2: Um... God is omnipotent. Wouldn't God already know what I'm going to do before I do it? Why would God need to test us when it already knows what's going to happen?

1: Because God decided to give humans free will!

[MineralMan]

70. Rationalization to maintain beliefs with no evidence.

I'm not having any of that.

[haele]

72. Problem is with people who are gods in their own minds...

I've found the rule of thumb is that those who believe God (or Jesus, or Mohammed, or Vishnu, or Buddha, et all...) agrees with them and their actions typically are hypocrites who don't actually agree with the God or God-representative they pretend is justifying their self-serving beliefs and actions.

These so-called religious fundamentalists create their own world that is way too small to include a deity that supposedly created a universe that is on a scale quadrillions of times larger than the one they are attempting to live in. They always appear to be terrified of the world outside their experience - and control - and their "struggles" always seem to involve keeping the things in the world they don't want to face away from them.

Logically, pretending that your tiny crumb of creation is more important than everything else is putting yourself above the entirety of the universe and potentially, the work of any super-natural entity or deity that might have been involved in that creation. If your God created the universe and is as great as you say s/he/it is, then s/he/it does not require you to provide any protection.
Most fundamentalist preachers who are preaching separation from the world as it is are indulging in the ultimate Blasphemy, in the event that their God is omnipotent.

If their God isn't omnipotent, then their God is all between their ears. In either case, theirs is a deity that doesn't really need protection. Fire and Brimstone/Conservative Fundamentalists who need to be judge, jury, and executioner for their "God" are just bullying popinjays and charlatans trying to influence the desperate or weak-minded around them their own personal armies and kingdoms of slaves they can profit from and rule over.

Haele

[kelliekat44]

73. Um..you would be trying to appeal to intelligence or logic...not "faith" right? nt

[MineralMan]

82. Uh, yes. That's always my emphasis.

I am not a person of "faith." I'm a person who requires evidence, not belief. Faith is evidence of nothing, except that some people are capable of having faith in things unseen. I'm not one of those people.

[riqster]

78. Power can be used or not used.

I personally believe in a creator, but not in an activist, interventionist deity.

[MineralMan]

84. OK. I personally don't believe in any "creator."

Such an entity cannot exist, I think, so I look for other explanations of things. Creators are just simplistic ways to explain what is not understood. They're just shortcuts that allow people not to look for actual answers. That's my belief, anyhow. Yours may differ from mine.

[riqster]

88. No worries. When discussing unprovable hypotheses, I find it best to be accepting of others' ideas.

I like Aristotle's Prime Mover concept far better than the notion of some cosmic puppetmaster, or the theory that there is nothing at all. But to each their own.

[NightWatcher]

80. You know what's fun, turn CNN on muted and read Christopher Hitchens

and watch all this evil silliness that has been wrought by manmade religions over the finer details that they cannot agree on.

[MineralMan]

85. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

I'm not a fan of CNN, nor of Christopher Hitchens. I think I'll read something else and leave the television off.

[NightWatcher]

87. Religion poisons everything. This is yet ANOTHER example

That we have not advanced as a species past this point, is very depressing.

[seveneyes]

83. Believers of unproven Deity are not rational persons

Any amount of superiority issues these people may have are amplified by their irrational beliefs.

[MineralMan]

86. This thread is not about that, at all, despite the

argument popping up in the thread. Each person understands and believes as they can. I have no issue with anyone's point of view on such things.

[Dale Neiburg]

91. Another alternative...

could be that there are indeed gods -- perhaps even omnipotent gods -- who are totally indifferent to blasphemy/sacrilege, and that the obsession for punishment comes entirely from the warped minds of humans. (Not to argue for a theistic position -- but we can't necessarily understand or interpret a god by the behavior of a human.)

[MineralMan]

92. No logic in that at all. What would be the point?

No evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities at all. Therefore, I cannot believe that such entities exist. I see no need for them to exist, either.

[Dale Neiburg]

97. Of course it's not evidence *for*.

My point is that failure to punish blasphemy isn't evidence against the existence of an omnipotent god, since it makes the untestable assumption that such a god would care about/object to blasphemy.

[MineralMan]

99. There is no evidence for any sort of deity.

It is, thus, illogical to believe that such entities exist at all, omnipotent or otherwise. I'm not a fan of illogical thinking at all.

If someone wishes me to consider the possibility that deities exist, they need to show me some sort of evidence of that. Lacking that, I seen no reason to believe that the existence of any supernatural entities is even possible.

Laws and actions against supposed blasphemy are strictly a human endeavor. There's plenty of evidence for that, since most religions consider blasphemy to be a bad thing. There's plenty of evidence that some humans of all religions I know of punish or even kill unbelievers. There is, however, zero evidence that the supposed deities do that. I reject the very idea that humans have any responsibility for enforcing the beliefs of any religion against those who do not believe. And yet it happens all the time, and has for millennia. It is a major human failing, in my opinion.

[Zorra]

100. This is where the priest says "God works in mysterious ways,

my son."

And the Rabbi says

“Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ or ‘Your work has no handles’? Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’ or to a woman, ‘With what are you in labor?’” Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and the one who formed him: “Ask me of things to come; will you command me concerning my children and the work of my hands? I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host."

And the Imam says

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith."

"The Holy Prophet himself forbade people to ask questions ...so do not try to probe into such things."

And the Paul quoting evangelical preacher says

"The evidence of God is all that has been made".

"But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?"

And Jesus might say

"Well, bro, I'm, like, the Creator of the Universe. I gave y'all life and free will. And y'all fucked everything up. So I became a human being, and tried to tell y'all how to live well, and be happy. I tried to make it as simple as possible, but y'all still didn't get it. So don't be laying this guilt trip on me....

I'm just wondering...what part of "Love Your Neighbor" did y'all not understand? Y'all really need to start taking care of your own shit."

Buddha might say

"Give up what is wrong and evil, undertake what is good, and abandon thoughts that have to do with bringing suffering to any conscious being; cultivate thoughts of loving kindness, that are based on caring about others' suffering, and sympathetic joy in others' happiness."

And a Marxist might say,

"Religion is the opium of the masses."

And a tribal medicine person or chief might say,

"If there is but one religion, why do you people differ so much about it? Why not all agreed, as you can all read the Book?"

"Every person must learn for themselves the highest wisdom. It cannot be taught with words."
------------------------------
etc. ad infinitum
------------------------------
There's lots of interesting ideas to ponder out there.

As for me, I only believe and do what seems to me to be my best way, and never follow anyone, or any thing, except myself. That said, would you like a cookie? Fresh baked this morning.

[WestCoastLib]

102. There aren't

And I'm getting increasingly sick of needed to infantilize half the population in order not to offend their fragile belief system.