http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/why_i_am_agnostic.html


Robert Green Ingersoll


**** ****

WHY I AM AN AGNOSTIC.

1896
_______

I

For the most part we inherit our opinions. We are the heirs of
habits and mental customs. Our beliefs, like the fashion of our
garments, depend on where we were born. We are molded and fashioned
by our surroundings.

Environment is a sculptor -- a painter.

Like the most of you, I was raised among people who knew --
who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no
doubts. They knew that they had the truth. In their creed there was
no guess -- no perhaps. They had a revelation from God. They knew
the beginning of things. They knew that God commenced to create one
Monday morning, four thousand and four years before Christ. They
knew that in the eternity -- back of that morning, he had done
nothing. They knew that it took him six days to make the earth --
all plants, all animals, all life, and all the globes that wheel in
space. They knew exactly what he did each day and when he rested.
They knew the origin, the cause of evil, of all crime, of all
disease and death.

They not only knew the beginning, but they knew the end. They
knew that life had one path and one road. They knew that the path,
grass-grown and narrow, filled with thorns and nettles, infested
with vipers, wet with tears, stained by bleeding feet, led to
heaven, and that the road, broad and smooth, bordered with fruits
and flowers, filled with laughter and song and all the happiness of
human love, led straight to hell. They knew that God was doing his
best to make you take the path and that the Devil used every art to
keep you in the road.

They knew that there was a perpetual battle waged between the
great Powers of good and evil for the possession of human souls.
They knew that many centuries ago God had left his throne and had
been born a babe into this poor world -- that he had suffered death
for the sake of man -- for the sake of saving a few. They also knew
that the human heart was utterly depraved, so that man by nature
was in love with wrong and hated God with all his might.

At the same time they knew that God created man in his own
image and was perfectly satisfied with his work. They also knew
that he had been thwarted by the Devil, who with wiles and lies had
deceived the first of human kind. They knew that in consequence of
that, God cursed the man and woman; the man with toil, the woman
with slavery and pain, and both with death; and that he cursed the
earth itself with briers and thorns, brambles and thistles. All
these blessed things they knew. They knew too all that God had done
to purify and elevate the race. They knew all about the Flood --
they knew that God, with the exception of eight, drowned all his children -- the old and young -- the bowed patriarch and the
dimpled babe -- the young man and the merry maiden -- the loving
mother and the laughing child -- because his mercy endureth
forever. They knew too, that he drowned the beasts and birds --
everything that walked or crawled or flew -- because his loving
kindness is over all his works. They knew that God, for the purpose
of civilizing his children, had devoured some with earthquakes,
destroyed some with storms of fire, killed some with his
lightnings, millions with famine, with pestilence, and sacrificed
countless thousands upon the fields of war. They knew that it was
necessary to believe these things and to love God. They knew that
there could be no salvation except by faith, and through the
atoning blood of Jesus Christ.

In those days ministers depended on revivals to save souls and
reform the world.

In the winter, navigation having closed, business was mostly
suspended. There were no railways and the only means of
communication were wagons and boats. Generally the roads were so
bad that the wagons were laid up with the boats. There were no
operas, no theaters, no amusement except parties and balls. The
parties were regarded as worldly and the balls as wicked. For real
and virtuous enjoyment the good people depended on revivals.

The sermons were mostly about the pains and agonies of hell,
the joys and ecstasies of heaven, salvation by faith, and the
efficacy of the atonement. The little churches, in which the
services were held, were generally small, badly ventilated, and
exceedingly warm. The emotional sermons, the sad singing, the
hysterical amens, the hope of heaven, the fear of hell, caused many
to lose the little sense they had. They became substantially
insane. In this condition they flocked to the "mourner's bench" --
asked for the prayers of the faithful -- had strange feelings,
prayed and wept and thought they had been "born again." Then they
would tell their experience -- how wicked they had been -- how evil
had been their thoughts, their desires, and how good they had
suddenly become.

Of course all the people were not exactly of one mind. There
were some scoffers, and now and then some man had sense enough to
laugh at the threats of priests and make a jest of hell. Some would
tell of unbelievers who had lived and died in peace.

So, they told of a man who compared himself with his dog. "My
dog," he said, "just barks and plays -- has all he wants to eat. He
never works -- has no trouble about business. In a little while he
dies, and that is all. I work with all my strength. I have no time
to play. I have trouble every day. In a little while I will die,
and then I go to hell. I wish that I had been a dog."

Well, while the cold weather lasted, while the snows fell, the
revival went on, but when the winter was over, when the steamboat's
whistle was heard, when business started again, most of the
converts "backslid" and fell again into their old ways. But the
next winter they were on hand, ready to be "born again." They
formed a kind of stock company, playing the same parts every winter
and backsliding every spring.

The ministers, who preached at these revivals, were in
earnest. They were zealous and sincere. They were not philosophers.
To them science was the name of a vague dread -- a dangerous enemy.
They did not know much, but they believed a great deal. To them
hell was a burning reality -- they could see the smoke and flames.
The Devil was no myth. He was an actual person. a rival of God, an enemy of mankind. They thought that the important business of this
life was to save your soul -- that all should resist and scorn the
pleasures of sense, and keep their eyes steadily fixed on the
golden gate of the New Jerusalem. They were unbalanced, emotional,
hysterical, bigoted, hateful, loving, and insane. They really
believed the Bible to be the actual word of God -- a book without
mistake or contradiction. They called its cruelties, justice -- its
absurdities, mysteries -- its miracles, facts, and the idiotic
passages were regarded as profoundly spiritual. They dwelt on the
pangs, the regrets, the infinite agonies of the lost, and showed
how easily they could be avoided, and how cheaply heaven could be
obtained. They told their hearers to believe, to have faith, to
give their hearts to God, their sins to Christ, who would bear
their burdens and make their souls as white as snow.

All this the ministers really believed. They were absolutely
certain. In their minds the Devil had tried in vain to sow the
seeds of doubt.

I heard hundreds of these evangelical sermons -- heard
hundreds of the most fearful and vivid descriptions of the tortures
inflicted in hell, of the horrible state of the lost. I supposed
that what I heard was true and yet I did not believe it. I said:
"It is," and then I thought: "It cannot be."

These sermons made but faint impressions on my mind. I was not
convinced.

I had no desire to be "converted," did not want a "new heart"
and had no wish to be "born again."

But I heard one sermon that touched my heart, that left its
mark, like a scar, on my brain.

One Sunday I went with my brother to hear a Free Will Baptist
preacher. He was a large man, dressed like a farmer, but he was an
orator. He could paint a picture with words.

He took for his text the parable of "the rich man and
Lazarus." He described Dives, the rich man -- his manner of life,
the excesses in which he indulged, his extravagance, his riotous
nights, his purple and fine linen, his feasts, his wines, and his
beautiful women.

Then he described Lazarus, his poverty, his rags and
wretchedness, his poor body eaten by disease, the crusts and crumbs
he devoured, the dogs that pitied him. He pictured his lonely life,
his friendless death.

Then, changing his tone of pity to one of triumph -- leaping
from tears to the heights of exultation -- from defeat to victory
-- he described the glorious company of angels, who with white and
outspread wings carried the soul of the despised pauper to Paradise
-- to the bosom of Abraham.

Then, changing his voice to one of scorn and loathing, he told
of the rich man's death. He was in his palace, on his costly couch,
the air heavy with perfume, the room filled with servants and
physicians. His gold was worthless then. He could not buy another
breath. He died, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in
torment.

Then, assuming a dramatic attitude, putting his right hand to
his ear, he whispered, "Hark! I hear the rich man's voice. What
does he say? Hark! 'Father Abraham! Father Abraham! I pray thee
send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and
cool my parched tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.'"

"Oh, my hearers, he has been making that request for more than
eighteen hundred years. And millions of ages hence that wail will
cross the gulf that lies between the saved and lost and still will
be heard the cry: 'Father Abraham! Father Abraham! I pray thee send
Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger. in water and cool my
parched tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.'"

For the first time I understood the dogma of eternal pain -- appreciated "the glad tidings of great joy." For the first time my
imagination grasped the height and depth of the Christian horror.
Then I said: "It is a lie, and I hate your religion. If it is true,
I hate your God."

From that day I have had no fear, no doubt. For me, on that
day, the flames of hell were quenched. From that day I have
passionately hated every orthodox creed. That Sermon did some good.

WHY I AM AN AGNOSTIC.

According to the Bible, God had never revealed himself to
these people and he knew that without a revelation they could not
know that he was the true God. Whose fault was it then that they
were heathen?

The Christians said that God had the right to destroy them
because he created them. What did he create them for? He knew when
he made them that they would be food for the sword. He knew that he
would have the pleasure of seeing them murdered.

As a last answer, as a final excuse, the worshipers of Jehovah
said that all these horrible things happened under the "old
dispensation" of unyielding law, and absolute justice, but that now
under the "new dispensation," all had been changed -- the sword of
justice had been sheathed and love enthroned. In the Old Testament,
they said. God is the judge -- but in the New, Christ is the
merciful. As a matter of fact, the New Testament is infinitely
worse than the Old. In the Old there is no threat of eternal pain.
Jehovah had no eternal prison -- no everlasting fire. His hatred
ended at the grave. His revenge was satisfied when his enemy was
dead.

In the New Testament, death is not the end, but the beginning
of punishment that has no end. In the New Testament the malice of
God is infinite and the hunger of his revenge eternal.

The orthodox God, when clothed in human flesh, told his
disciples not to resist evil, to love their enemies, and when
smitten on one cheek to turn the other, and yet we are told that
this same God, with the same loving lips, uttered these heartless,
these fiendish words; "Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels."

These are the words of "eternal love."

No human being has imagination enough to conceive of this
infinite horror.

All that the human race has suffered in war and want, in
pestilence and famine, in fire and flood, -- all the pangs and
pains of every disease and every death -- all this is as nothing
compared with the agonies to be endured by one lost soul.

This is the consolation of the Christian religion. This is the
justice of God -- the mercy of Christ.

This frightful dogma, this infinite lie, made me the
implacable enemy of Christianity. The truth is that this belief in
eternal pain has been the real persecutor. It founded the
Inquisition, forged the chains, and furnished the fagots. It has
darkened the lives of many millions. It made the cradle as terrible
as the coffin. It enslaved nations and shed the blood of countless
thousands. It sacrificed the wisest, the bravest and the best. It
subverted the idea of justice, drove mercy from the heart, changed
men to fiends and banished reason from the brain.

Like a venomous serpent it crawls and coils and hisses in
every orthodox creed.

It makes man an eternal victim and God an eternal fiend. It is
the one infinite horror. Every church in which it is taught is a
public curse. Every preacher who teaches it is an enemy of mankind.
Below this Christian dogma, savagery cannot go. It is the infinite
of malice, hatred, and revenge.

Nothing could add to the horror of hell, except the presence
of its creator, God.

While I have life, as long as I draw breath, I shall deny with
all my strength, and hate with every drop of my blood, this
infinite lie. ______________Robert Ingersoll

hooray for agnostics

how appropriate he copys and pastes something for his explanation as to why he is agnostic

how appropriate he copys and pastes something for his explanation as to why he is agnostic


I am not agnostic. I am an atheist.

This thread is here to provide insight into the thought processes of one particular agnostic of note, Robert Green Ingersoll. I believe he was responsible for some of the most profound and compelling critiques of the Christian religion that were ever written.

(btw,....in regards to your smarmy little quip about *copy and paste*, any time you'd like to do a comparison of the number of oriiginal words and thoughts that you and I have each posted to these boards, just let me know.)

I am not agnostic. I am an atheist.

This thread is here to provide insight into the thought processes of one particular agnostic of note, Robert Green Ingersoll. I believe he was responsible for some of the most profound and compelling critiques of the Christian religion that were ever written.

(btw,....in regards to your smarmy little quip about *copy and paste*, any time you'd like to do a comparison of the number of oriiginal words and thoughts that you and I have each posted to these boards, just let me know.)

OK, start compiling the list, I will be back here when you are done.

(btw,....in regards to your smarmy little quip about *copy and paste*, any time you'd like to do a comparison of the number of oriiginal words and thoughts that you and I have each posted to these boards, just let me know.)

OK, start compiling the list,...

Readng comprehension is not your forte.

if you dont have a list how are you going to compare?

Goes.. against.. programming....

Must... insult... to... relieve... responsibility.. of... thoughtful.. intelligent... rebuttal....

*inside the mind of FT*

Must... insult... to... relieve... responsibility.. of... thoughtful.. intelligent... rebuttal....

*inside the mind of FT*

I guess not all of us can come up with such thoughtful, intelligent rebuttals as --

"""We all know your mother has MANY more original thoughts than you.. I mean, i've never seen a girl swallow so much poop!"" --- Decka

*sniff sniff...

i smell a cop-out.

AND i see someone has a short memory. Do i have to REexplain why i said that? Gee, there was NO humorous value there!

I stand by my poop jokes LOL.. quit being a square.

*sniff sniff...

i smell a cop-out.

AND i see someone has a short memory. Do i have to REexplain why i said that? Gee, there was NO humorous value there!

I stand by my poop jokes LOL.. quit being a square.
I must admit to a little puzzlement why "Freethinker" labeled this thread "Why I am an agnostic," when he declares himself an atheist.

I think the main reason someone would think themselves an "agnostic" is that they have an open mind and can see both sides of the issue, since both sides have, in my opinion, strong cases.

(Lest I be misinterpreted, I think the "theist" case is strong, but I do not think there is any rationality at all in its main manifestations, such as Christianity and Islam. These are human memes--a sort of infection--that perpetuate themselves via indoctrination (mainly in childhood), threats and force, and social pressure, not through rational argument.)

There is also a good logical argument for the flavor of agnosticism often called "strong agnosticism." (It differs from ordinary, or "weak agnosticism" in that it says human being have no rational right to be anything but agnostics).

The argument for strong agnosticism is a good one--it points out that from the human perspective we have no choice but to be agnostic about anything infinite. We just cannot know if it really is infinite, or merely has boundaries beyond our comprehension.

Even if an infinite being chooses to reveal itself, we still have the residual possibility that this being itself doesn't know its own boundaries (an infinite set can be a subset of another infinite set, such as the set of all even integers is a subset of all integers), nor that it is necessarily being honest (there is no way within the revelation to prove the truth of the revelation, even if everything we can test proves true).

Personally, I find the argument for strong agnosticism very persuasive if one lives in a world of certainties, but we live in a very different world. We have to reach conclusions based on evidence, not logical proofs, and the logic of self-referent contradictions, when one begins talking about God as perceived in the West, disallows such a being. (I talked about these self-referent contradictions in an earlier message, and noted that none of the "faithful" who post here seem to have responded. I imagine they don't understand any of this.)

I must admit to a little puzzlement why "Freethinker" labeled this thread "Why I am an agnostic," when he declares himself an atheist.

It is the title of the article he posted. I'm sure people have done that before, right? Posted an interesting article and then putting the title in the thread name?

WHY I AM AN AGNOSTIC.

11

For a time I left the dreams, the insanities, the illusions
and delusions, the nightmares of theology. I studied astronomy,
just a little -- I examined maps of the heavens -- learned the
names of some of the constellations -- of some of the stars --
found something of their size and the velocity with which they
wheeled in their orbits -- obtained a faint conception of
astronomical spaces -- found that some of the known stars were so
far away in the depths of space that their light, traveling at the
rate of nearly two hundred thousand miles a second, required many
years to reach this little world -- found that, compared with the
great stars, our earth was but a grain of sand -- an atom -- found
that the old belief that all the hosts of heaven had been created
for the benefit of man, was infinitely absurd.

I compared what was really known about the stars with the
account of creation as told in Genesis. I found that the writer of
the inspired book had no knowledge of astronomy -- that he was as
ignorant as a Choctaw chief -- as an Eskimo driver of dogs. Does
any one imagine that the author of Genesis knew anything about the
sun -- its size? that he was acquainted with Sirius, the North
Star, with Capella, or that he knew anything of the clusters of
stars so far away that their light, now visiting our eyes, has been
traveling for two million years?

If he had known these facts would he have said that Jehovah
worked nearly six days to make this world, and only a part of the
afternoon of the fourth day to make the sun and moon and all the
stars?

Yet millions of people insist that the writer of Genesis was
inspired by the Creator of all worlds.

Now, intelligent men, who are not frightened, whose brains
have not been paralyzed by fear, know that the sacred story of
creation was written by an ignorant savage. The story is
inconsistent with all known facts, and every star shining in the
heavens testifies that its author was an uninspired barbarian.

I admit that this unknown writer was sincere, that he wrote
what he believed to be true -- that he did the best he could. He
did not claim to be inspired -- did not pretend that the story had
been told to him by Jehovah. He simply stated the "facts" as he
understood them.

After I had learned a little about the stars I concluded that
this writer, this "inspired" scribe, had been misled by myth and
legend, and that he knew no more about creation than the average
theologian of my day. In other words, that he knew absolutely
nothing.

And here, allow me to say that the ministers who are answering
me are turning their guns in the wrong direction. These reverend
gentlemen should attack the astronomers. They should malign and
vilify Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Herschel and Laplace. These men
were the real destroyers of the sacred story. Then, after having
disposed of them, they can wage a war against the stars, and
against Jehovah himself for having furnished evidence against the
truthfulness of his book.

Then I studied geology -- not much, just a little -- Just
enough to find in a general way the principal facts that had been
discovered, and some of the conclusions that had been reached. I
learned something of the action of fire -- of water -- of the
formation of islands and continents -- of the sedimentary and
igneous rocks -- of the coal measures -- of the chalk cliffs,
something about coral reefs -- about the deposits made by rivers,
the effect of volcanoes, of glaciers, and of the all surrounding
sea -- just enough to know that the Laurentian rocks were millions
of years older than the grass beneath my feet -- just enough to
feel certain that this world had been pursuing its flight about the
sun, wheeling in light and shade, for hundreds of millions of years
-- just enough to know that the "inspired" writer knew nothing of
the history of the earth -- nothing of the great forces of nature
-- of wind and wave and fire -- forces that have destroyed and
built, wrecked and wrought through all the countless years.

And let me tell the ministers again that they should not waste
their time in answering me. They should attack the geologists. They
should deny the facts that have been discovered. They should launch
their curses at the blaspheming seas, and dash their heads against
the infidel rocks.

Then I studied biology -- not much -- just enough to know
something of animal forms, enough to know that life existed when
the Laurentian rocks were made -- just enough to know that
implements of stone, implements that had been formed by human
hands, had been found mingled with the bones of extinct animals,
bones that had been split with these implements, and that these
animals had ceased to exist hundreds of thousands of years before
the manufacture of Adam and Eve.

Then I felt sure that the "inspired" record was false -- that
many millions of people had been deceived and that all I had been
taught about the origin of worlds and men was utterly untrue. I
felt that I knew that the Old Testament was the work of ignorant
men -- that it was a mingling of truth and mistake, of wisdom and
foolishness, of cruelty and kindness, of philosophy and absurdity
-- that it contained some elevated thoughts, some poetry, -- a good
deal of the solemn and commonplace, -- some hysterical, some
tender, some wicked prayers, some insane predictions, some
delusions, and some chaotic dreams.

Of course the theologians fought the facts found by the
geologists, the scientists, and sought to sustain the sacred
Scriptures. They mistook the bones of the mastodon for those of
human beings, and by them proudly proved that "there were giants in
those days." They accounted for the fossils by saying that God had
made them to try our faith, or that the Devil had imitated the
works of the Creator.

They answered the geologists by saying that the "days" in
Genesis were long periods of time, and that after all the flood
might have been local. They told the astronomers that the sun and
moon were not actually, but only apparently, stopped. And that the
appearance was produced by the reflection and refraction of light.

They excused the slavery and polygamy, the robbery and murder
upheld in the Old Testament by saying that the people were so
degraded that Jehovah was compelled to pander to their ignorance
and prejudice.

In every way the clergy sought to evade the facts, to dodge
the truth, to preserve the creed.

At first they flatly denied the facts -- then they belittled
them -- then they harmonized them -- then they denied that they had
denied them. Then they changed the meaning of the "inspired" book
to fit the facts. At first they said that if the facts, as claimed,
were true, the Bible was false and Christianity itself a
superstition. Afterward they said the facts, as claimed, were true
and that they established beyond all doubt the inspiration of the
Bible and the divine origin of orthodox religion.

Anything they could not dodge, they swallowed and anything
they could not swallow, they dodged.

I gave up the Old Testament on account of its mistakes, its
absurdities, its ignorance and its cruelty. I gave up the New
because it vouched for the truth of the Old. I gave it up on
account of its miracles, its contradictions, because Christ and his
disciples believe in the existence of devils -- talked and made
bargains with them. expelled them from people and animals.

This, of itself, is enough. We know, if we know anything, that
devils do not exist -- that Christ never cast them out, and that if
he pretended to, he was either ignorant, dishonest or insane.

The material you post does not present reasons for being either an agnostic or an atheist, but only reasons for rejecting fundamentalist Biblical religions.

What you do may be similar to when a Christian presents rational arguments in favor of theism and interprets them as confirming Christianity.

The material you post does not present reasons for being either an agnostic or an atheist, but only reasons for rejecting [fundamentalist] Biblical religions.

What you do may be similar to when a Christian presents rational arguments in favor of theism and interprets them as confirming Christianity.

For reasons I don't understand, my repeated efforts to edit this message to insert the word "fundamentalist" before "Biblical religions" does not "take." I have resorted to posting a corrective "response" to my original message.

If you were trying to do it with brackets, that was probably why. Forum software is funny like that.

I took the liberty of editing your post for you. :)

The material you post does not present reasons for being either an agnostic or an atheist, but only reasons for rejecting fundamentalist Biblical religions.

We disagree.

What you do may be similar to when a Christian presents rational arguments in favor of theism and interprets them as confirming Christianity.

Or....it may not.

BTW; I have never heard a *rational argument for* the existence of Peter Pan.

I have never heard a *rational argument for* the existence of leprechauns.

And I have never heard a *rational argument for* theism.

We disagree.



Or....it may not.

BTW; I have never heard a *rational argument for* the existence of Peter Pan.

I have never heard a *rational argument for* the existence of leprechauns.

And I have never heard a *rational argument for* theism.
I dunno about Peter Pan, but you better be careful what you say about Leprechauns--that is so long as you like fresh milk.

You keep saying over and over that there is no rational reason for theism. I guess you think by saying it over and over people will believe you. Then someone posts a rational reason, and somehow you manage to not notice. I can see why some theists lose patience.

I'm sure you understand that what convinces you of something will not be the same as what convinces someone else. Neither of us is persuaded by the evidences offered of God--that is one thing--but the continued insistence that there is no evidence is another.

I dunno about Peter Pan, but you better be careful what you say about Leprechauns--that is so long as you like fresh milk.

You keep saying over and over that there is no rational reason for theism. I guess you think by saying it over and over people will believe you. Then someone posts a rational reason, and somehow you manage to not notice. I can see why some theists lose patience.

I'm sure you understand that what convinces you of something will not be the same as what convinces someone else. Neither of us is persuaded by the evidences offered of God--that is one thing--but the continued insistence that there is no evidence is another.

Thislin, if we accept that the existence of the stars in the sky as "evidence" of God, is that much different than blaming our spoiled milk on leprechauns?

Because someone believes that this thing or that other thing are evidence of God does that belief make it so?

I think that in order for something to be considered as "evidence" of another thing, there must be some sort of logical or rational connection between the two things. If anything is acceptable as evidence of another thing, the word ceases to have any meaning.

Thislin, if we accept that the existence of the stars in the sky as "evidence" of God, is that much different than blaming our spoiled milk on leprechauns?

Because someone believes that this thing or that other thing are evidence of God does that belief make it so?

I think that in order for something to be considered as "evidence" of another thing, there must be some sort of logical or rational connection between the two things. If anything is acceptable as evidence of another thing, the word ceases to have any meaning.
I need to repeat: You demand proof from the "other side" but are happy with just evidence for yours.

The stars are evidence--they obey physical laws and behave in predictable ways. The very fact that science is possible--that the universe is not chaotic--is evidence of a logic-giving deity. Frankly, if logic is not somehow a "given," then mind could be its only possible origin as far as I can imagine. The difference between me and a theist on this point is that I say "I don't know," while they want to jump to a conclusion.

I can certainly understand and appreciate their approach.

You keep saying over and over that there is no rational reason for theism. I guess you think by saying it over and over people will believe you.

I cannot determine of you make such a statement out of ignorance, or if your anger causes you to lie about it.

Example; Not only have I not stated "over and over" that there is no rational reason for theism.......in the previous post, I made no atempt to **make people believe** that there is no rational argument for theism.

I simply stated that I personally had never heard (IOW, have never been presented with) a rational argument for theism.

Got it?!?!?!

I....have not been presented with a rational argument for theism

Then someone posts a rational reason,.......

I have read every post, and I saw nothing of the kind. Please repost this *rational argument for the existence of theism* for me.

Neither of us is persuaded by the evidences offered of God--that is one thing--but the continued insistence that there is no evidence is another.

Pardon me if I do not view a simpleminded --"Well just look at the stars!!....there's your evidence of god!!"-- comment as comprising "evidence" of the existence of this purported "god" the theists believe in.

Just consider the fact that many intelligent, well-informed people are persuaded by such "irrational" considerations. Maybe the fault is in you and not the argument.

I suspect it must confuse people that on one thread I argue against Spark's Christian views, and on another I argue with FT against his. What goes?

What goes is that I oppose fundamentalist ideas--both Spark's reliance on myths for his moral judgment and FT's rejection of religion. They are both "fundamentalists" as far as I can determine.

FT's main error on this thread, in my opinion, is that he attacks literal, fundamentalist Christianity (in particular the Bible's less desirable parts) in specific and then broadens this to a general (and unjustified) conclusion that no god exists and that all religion, and Christianity in particular, are evils.

Spark's main error, as far as I can tell, is that he holds onto his childhood indoctrinated idea that the Bible is not just inspired by God but as a result is the infallible and ultimate guide to truth, in spite of the fact that this belief leads in some cases to immoral conclusions.

I propose a middle way. Personally I don't think any gods exist, either, but I make no pretense that theist arguments are without merit--just that to me they are not convincing. (It depends on the day of the week--on Tuesdays I am convinced and believe in God. That is to say, sometimes I am on the edge of being convinced--the basic argument of the non-chaotic "order" of things is a strong one).

Similarly with the Bible--I can read Elijah calling onto God to send the she-bears and kill the mockers, and I wince too--but I refuse to draw an anti-religion, anti-Christian or even anti-Bible conclusion from it. All I conclude is that the particular author of that story was morally deluded. It does not mean that the Bible might on other matters have valuable things to say.

I can read Elijah calling onto God to send the she-bears and kill the mockers, and I wince too--but I refuse to draw an anti-religion, anti-Christian or even anti-Bible conclusion from it.

You "refuse", eh.

A god that sends bears to brutally kill 42 children for making fun of a bald headed man. I cannot imagine how you could not draw an anti-religion, anti-Christian or anti-Bible conclusion from it.

All I conclude is that the particular author of that story was morally deluded.

?!?!?

How could the author of the story in question, being inspired by (according to the Christian religion) the omnipotent entity that created the universe, possibly write one word that was *morally deluded*, or wrong in the slightest degree.....?!?!?!

If we look at it from the perspective of Christianity, it cannot be so. It is logically inconistent.

If the writer of the book of 2 Kings wrote anything that was morally imperfect, or that was wrong in the smallest "jot and tittle*, then it would follow that logically that the "god" that inspired him to write is not omnipotent.

A god that sends bears to brutally kill 42 children for making fun of a bald headed man. I cannot imagine how you could not draw an anti-religion, anti-Christian or anti-Bible conclusion from it.

I don't draw an anti-God or anti-religion conclusion from it because, as you agree with me, the story is not from God. You can't really have your cake and eat it too and denounce God and religion for things in the Bible when you deny that the Bible is from God.

As far as an anti-Christian message, I would say it depends on the Christian. It is an anti-fundamentalist message, since a fundamentalist will say this was not an evil story but only one that demonstrates that God "hates" sin (it is almost impossible to not "hate" a person who would say such a thing).

But most Christians are not like that.

I need to repeat: You demand proof from the "other side" but are happy with just evidence for yours.

I don't understand why you draw this conclusion. All I'm saying is that there should be some logical reason to associte your "evidence" with your "conclusion" regardless of which side of the argument you're on. It's fine to suggest that the stars are evidence of God if you have something other than your desires to base that conclusion on.


The stars are evidence--they obey physical laws and behave in predictable ways. The very fact that science is possible--that the universe is not chaotic--is evidence of a logic-giving deity. Frankly, if logic is not somehow a "given," then mind could be its only possible origin as far as I can imagine. The difference between me and a theist on this point is that I say "I don't know," while they want to jump to a conclusion.

I can certainly understand and appreciate their approach.

I can understand that approach as well. That doesn't make it an accurate or correct approach, nor does it suggest that you'll get good results by following it.

Logic is the tool we use to analyze our universe. I often wonder if we accurately perceive the universe when we look at it through a logical lens, or are we merely limiting our field of view by filtering our conclusions using logic as a guide. Nevertheless, it's the best tool we've come up with so far, and I suspect logic is a better tool than religious faith when it comes to analyzing the universe. In the end, it may not present us with a more accurate picture of the universe but it will be a picture formed by our reason and not our fears and desires. It may be that we are incapale of seeing the universe the way it truly is, and in that event, science may be just as fallible as religion in its portaryal of our universe. Still, if history is any guide, science seems to be a corrective influence on religious thought insofar as how we see our universe.

Your statement: "The very fact that science is possible--that the universe is not chaotic--is evidence of a logic-giving deity", is an example of seeing the universe through the template of human desire. The fact that the universe seems to have an underlying order is only evidence that for whatever reason, the universe prefers order to chaos, and IMO, in no way suggests the involvement of a deity. Could the existence of the stars be the result of divine intervention? Sure, but without some reason to conclude that outside of their mere existence, it would be the same as concluding that the leprechauns were responsible for souring your milk, even though it likely was the result of a bovine bacteria. If it turns out that the universe is managed by an overseeing deity, that will be ok with me, but so far I've seen nothing to point me in that direction, and I've seen no evidence to even suggest that it's more likely than any other scenario.

I often wonder if we accurately perceive the universe when we look at it through a logical lens, or are we merely limiting our field of view by filtering our conclusions using logic as a guide.

What a fascinating statement. I have also wondered about that, but some time ago decided that the systems we use (logic or mathematics) do reflect reality, and that this is a wonder.

The reason I think this is so and that our mathematics is not a human invention is that it serves to predict things, such as many aspects of quantum mechanics, that are utterly counter-intuitive. It also takes a lot of work to get to the point where relativity is not counter-intuitive.

Even many intuitive ideas are predicted first by mathematics and only later by models. Of course these things work both ways--sometimes the model exists and maths are developed to handle it, sometimes vice-versa.

Now the question in the air was whether it is necessary to explain this in any manner more than just saying that logic and the mathematics derived from it are just a "given." This is uncomfortable--we feel there should be a deeper reason--even a creator (or maybe it is a reflection of the activity of the Tao).

All of this is speculation. All we can say is that we don't know.

My argument is that it is "evidence" for God--derived from the fact that arguments like this are often presented by theists. (As my parenthesis points out, the same could be said of the Tao). It is not, to me, convincing evidence, but it is evidence.

You should remember that all of this is in the context of my dissent from statements that there is no evidence whatever for God.

As to the distinction between evidence and proof, it is true that the distinction is only of degree--something I haven't spelled out. To me "proof" is evidence so strong that all except the mentally ill will be persuaded. Such evidence is rare.

What a fascinating statement. I have also wondered about that, but some time ago decided that the systems we use (logic or mathematics) do reflect reality, and that this is a wonder.

The reason I think this is so and that our mathematics is not a human invention is that it serves to predict things, such as many aspects of quantum mechanics, that are utterly counter-intuitive. It also takes a lot of work to get to the point where relativity is not counter-intuitive.

Even many intuitive ideas are predicted first by mathematics and only later by models. Of course these things work both ways--sometimes the model exists and maths are developed to handle it, sometimes vice-versa.

Now the question in the air was whether it is necessary to explain this in any manner more than just saying that logic and the mathematics derived from it are just a "given." This is uncomfortable--we feel there should be a deeper reason--even a creator (or maybe it is a reflection of the activity of the Tao).

All of this is speculation. All we can say is that we don't know.

My argument is that it is "evidence" for God--derived from the fact that arguments like this are often presented by theists. (As my parenthesis points out, the same could be said of the Tao). It is not, to me, convincing evidence, but it is evidence.

You should remember that all of this is in the context of my dissent from statements that there is no evidence whatever for God.

I agree with you that logic and reason represent the best methods we have to accurately describe the universe, which is why I am especially reluctant to accept as fact those things derived using a different method.


As to the distinction between evidence and proof, it is true that the distinction is only of degree--something I haven't spelled out. To me "proof" is evidence so strong that all except the mentally ill will be persuaded. Such evidence is rare.

I can accept your definition of the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof', but I'd point out that there are differences of opinion as to what constitutes 'mental illness'. :)

I work with a nice gentleman who believes that the world is only a few thousand years old. Is he mentally ill?

Is he mentally ill?
Well, there's definitely a few screws loose up there.

The stars are evidence--they obey physical laws and behave in predictable ways. The very fact that science is possible--that the universe is not chaotic--is evidence of a logic-giving deity.

Ahhh!

We have finally located the absolute bedrock of our disagreement.

I could not be more in disagreement with your conclusion that; "The very fact that science is possible--that the universe is not chaotic--is evidence of a logic-giving deity".

The difference between me and a theist on this point is that I say "I don't know," while they want to jump to a conclusion.

!!!!

You have it exactly backwards!!!

I am the one who is saying --"I do not know how the stars got there".

YOU --when you say --""The very fact that science is possible--that the universe is not chaotic--is evidence of a logic-giving deity""-- are the one who is jumping to a conclusion, and ascribing their existence to a deity!!

Pardon me if I do not view a simpleminded --"Well just look at the stars!!....there's your evidence of god!!"-- comment as comprising "evidence" of the existence of this purported "god" the theists believe in.


Just consider the fact that many intelligent, well-informed people are persuaded by such "irrational" considerations. Maybe the fault is in you and not the argument.

The fact that ""many intelligent, well-informed people"" believe it means absolutely nothing.

At one time, the majority of people on this planet believed --with every fibre of their being-- that it was flat. That a billion people all believe the same thing in no way makes that thing true.

Well said FT.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
A god that sends bears to brutally kill 42 children for making fun of a bald headed man. I cannot imagine how you could not draw an anti-religion, anti-Christian or anti-Bible conclusion from it.

I don't draw an anti-God or anti-religion conclusion from it because, as you agree with me, the story is not from God.

Huh?!?

I do NOT agree with you that the story is "not from God".

I am arguing against the religionist's perspective of this...and the religionist's perspective is that the story most certainly IS from their God.

You can't really have your cake and eat it too and denounce God and religion for things in the Bible when you deny that the Bible is from God.

Again, you have gotten the two positions exactly backwards and want to have your cake and eat it too.

The religionist --with his position of ""My god is omnipotent, my god is benevolent and loving!"" -- is the one who, with the story of the she-bears (along with hundreds of other preposterous tales) has a contradition to explain.

No "all loving and benevolent" entity, who is all powerful, could ever under any circumstance send bears to kill 42 children for nothing more than their having made fun of a bald headed man.

How is the contradiction explained away?? You attempt to evade the dilemma by stating --"Well, I will simply conclude that God did not 'inspire' that person to write THAT part of the Book!""

THAT, my friend, is what is called *trying to have it both ways*.

It is the religionist who, any time something the Bible states is exposed as being totally irrational, retreats to a fall-back position of --"Well , THAT part didn't really come from God!"-- is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

At one time, the majority of people on this planet believed --with every fibre of their being-- that it was flat. That a billion people all believe the same thing in no way makes that thing true.
That depends on the individual's perception of reality.

The fact that ""many intelligent, well-informed people"" believe it means absolutely nothing.

At one time, the majority of people on this planet believed --with every fibre of their being-- that it was flat. That a billion people all believe the same thing in no way makes that thing true.

Your lack of respect for others is well seen in this message.

The flat-earth example is tiresome and irrelevant. I was not arguing that belief by others is proof of anything, only that it should give us pause before we reject so arrogantly.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
The fact that ""many intelligent, well-informed people"" believe it means absolutely nothing.

At one time, the majority of people on this planet believed --with every fibre of their being-- that it was flat. That a billion people all believe the same thing in no way makes that thing true.

Your lack of respect for others is well seen in this message.


Having a "lack of respect" for them does not accurately describe it.

I simply view them (note: by "them" I refer to that immense, teeming mass of people in this country who imagine that an unseen supernatural being is watching over all of humankind and is deeply concerned with our behavior) as being mentally disturbed.

And even at that, I would have no complaint against them whatsoever for simply being insane. Except that the teeming mass in question has the power to decide --for all intents and purposes-- how the society that I live in will be ordered; what is to be considered "moral" and what is not; who is to be considered a "good person" and who is not; and what laws we will all be forced to live under.

__________________________________

(for an example of the insanity in question, please review the statement below)

"The end of the world is a good thing, it means YESHUA has arrived." ______janrich456

Having a "lack of respect" for them does not accurately describe it.

I simply view them (note: by "them" I refer to that immense, teeming mass of people in this country who imagine that an unseen supernatural being is watching over all of humankind and is deeply concerned with our behavior) as being mentally disturbed.

And even at that, I would have no complaint against them whatsoever for simply being insane. Except that the teeming mass in question has the power to decide --for all intents and purposes-- how the society that I live in will be ordered; what is to be considered "moral" and what is not; who is to be considered a "good person" and who is not; and what laws we will all be forced to live under.

If religion had not been invented, do you think that a society would not have rules of order and that there would not be laws to live under?

Although, I do not believe we will ever see such. People seem to desire, no, change that to demand, some type of religion. The demand seems so strong that many are willing to die, rather than give up the religion.

If, there could be a separation of god and religion, I often wonder which one many would choose.

If religion had not been invented, do you think that a society would not have rules of order and that there would not be laws to live under?

Although, I do not believe we will ever see such. People seem to desire, no, change that to demand, some type of religion. The demand seems so strong that many are willing to die, rather than give up the religion.

If, there could be a separation of god and religion, I often wonder which one many would choose.

Religion provides a center to the lives of many people. I think those hostile to religion lack a center and this emptiness leaves them hostile.

I spent many years not really believing anything, but going to a nice, comfortable liberal Christian church anyway. If was nice socially, the pastor always had refreshing and inspirational things to say, and it gave me a focus (one of several in my life).

Ritual seems to be a human need, if only group singing, it is emotionally good. I now know about meditation and it serves for me the role that prayer use to play--an ability to talk things over with myself and my subconscious, and I don't feel uneasy about it the way I used to when I prayed (what am I doing talking to a God I don't believe in?).

Also, religion is the inspiration of much art and music and architecture, all around the world, and I dare say a spiritual person appreciates this in a way that is special and better than just as art objects.

Now, don't misunderstand. I am an atheist. I don't think there is a god or a "supernatural" either, but I nevertheless think there are aspects of existence we don't even begin to imagine. I also identify the human spirit as often trying to tell us so.

I don't know what form this might take; whether it is the karma of India-derived religions or the Tao of China or the universal spirit of Transcendentalism or something else, but modern materialism has it all wrong. I think that in the distant future people may look back at our times and view the materialism that prevails now as no less quaint and misinformed than we look at those who thought the earth was flat.

Ritual seems to be a human need, if only group singing, it is emotionally good. I now know about meditation and it serves for me the role that prayer use to play--an ability to talk things over with myself and my subconscious, and I don't feel uneasy about it the way I used to when I prayed (what am I doing talking to a God I don't believe in?).


I don't know what form this might take; whether it is the karma of India-derived religions or the Tao of China or the universal spirit of Transcendentalism or something else, but modern materialism has it all wrong. I think that in the distant future people may look back at our times and view the materialism that prevails now as no less quaint and misinformed than we look at those who thought the earth was flat.

The communication with the subconcious, you speak of, is probably the form it will take.
I believe, this communication holds the answers to many questions that man has tried to depend upon religion to answer.

If religion had not been invented, do you think that a society would not have rules of order and that there would not be laws to live under?

Yes, undoubtedly.

But religion teaches people to view the world from a viewpoint totally immersed in and infused with superstition and the supernatural.

And when the vast majority of people making up a society are relgionists/superstitionists, you wind up --sadly-- with myriad laws being passed that are a direct reflection of that superstition and illogic.


People seem to desire, no, change that to demand, some type of religion.

Absolutely.

The minute humans realize that their body will one day wither and die, humankind begins to seek any and every means possible to deny it and to somehow make it seem otherwise.

The particular form of mental imbalance (one that is drilled into humans while they are young and before they can begin to think critically) known as *religion* offers homo sapiens the world's most comfortable and appealing lie; that the body will die, but that there is some special little metaphysical spark inside--the "soul"-- that will never die.

But religion teaches people to view the world from a viewpoint totally immersed in and infused with superstition and the supernatural.

I guess you think that if you make bald and unsupportable (and false) assertions like this often enough people might begin to believe them.

The particular form of mental imbalance (one that is drilled into humans while they are young and before they can begin to think critically) known as *religion* offers homo sapiens the world's most comfortable and appealing lie; that the body will die, but that there is some special little metaphysical spark inside--the "soul"-- that will never die.

Borrowing a card from my deck, huh? You use my exact words. It is right, though--religions, especially those based on myth, do depend on childhood indoctrination to perpetuate themselves (except Islam, which uses this too, but also still depends on brute force--Christians have become house trained and don't do that any more).

However, calling religions "mental imbalance" is just propaganda. There are insane religionists and insane atheists. Most of both groups are perfectly sane.

I also argue with your calling religion a "comfortable lie." It can be damn uncomfortable (I think of Luther before he discovered his theory of Grace, while he was persuaded by his own logic that he had no possible destination except Hell).

Calling religion a "lie" is incorrect too. It may not jibe with reality very well, but the word "lie" implies deliberate falsehood. The development of religion is a natural human process, with some chicanery here and there, but mostly it is honest and well intended.


--Martin

The communication with the subconscious, you speak of, is probably the form it will take.
I believe, this communication holds the answers to many questions that man has tried to depend upon religion to answer.

There is not much one learns in meditation, at least of an intellectual nature. More often one has learned some teaching about the mind or about existence and then one meditates on the teaching to see if and where it fits.

I think many of the aspects of religion provide insights, not just communication with the subconscious. For example, I know ritual does. I could say as much about religious art, except that all art is religious in my eyes.

Also, I think the most humanity can expect is to come to a realization that there are real "unexplainables" out there, but will probably never explain them.

Reading the dogmatism of both the Christians and the atheists on these boards, I am impressed with the fact that most people are still not ready to accept their intellectual limits.

There is not much one learns in meditation, at least of an intellectual nature. More often one has learned some teaching about the mind or about existence and then one meditates on the teaching to see if and where it fits.

I think many of the aspects of religion provide insights, not just communication with the subconscious. For example, I know ritual does. I could say as much about religious art, except that all art is religious in my eyes.

Also, I think the most humanity can expect is to come to a realization that there are real "unexplainables" out there, but will probably never explain them.

Reading the dogmatism of both the Christians and the atheists on these boards, I am impressed with the fact that most people are still not ready to accept their intellectual limits.

When I speak of communication with the subconscious, I do not necessarily mean meditation.
To me, the subconscious is a doorway to information that was not previously known to the individual. Learning to enterpret the symbolism of feedback to the thinking mind has enabled me to have insights that I never considered before.

The subconscious seems to have access to a universal knowledge that flows around us, possibly like an antenna that has access to invisible radio waves around us. Waves that we are unaware of until we access them and the information flows. It has little to do with intellect or mans religions.

I became interested in this aspect many years ago when problem solvers, like Edison, spoke of the answer to problems coming to them during sleep.
It either had to be the brain working overtime or the subconscious acting when the thinking mind was still. After finding out that the problems were solved with information that was not formerly known to the individual I began to suspect that the subconscious was a link to a universal knowledge.

I know that this was a little off-topic, but it may one day be found that many of the occurances that man has attributed to a god actually comes from man himself. The search for the perfect religion may bring man full-circle to himself.

When I speak of communication with the subconscious, I do not necessarily mean meditation.
To me, the subconscious is a doorway to information that was not previously known to the individual. Learning to interpret the symbolism of feedback to the thinking mind has enabled me to have insights that I never considered before.

<<Technically, the "subconscious" is a construct where instincts are kept, and they influence us in all sorts of unbidden and usually undetected ways. For example, people who are on the weight-loss yo-yo (dieting and losing weight, then gaining it back, over and over) are fighting their subconscious, which is determined, in that person, to be fat. I think you have a very different concept.

The subconscious seems to have access to a universal knowledge that flows around us, possibly like an antenna that has access to invisible radio waves around us. Waves that we are unaware of until we access them and the information flows. It has little to do with intellect or man's religions.

>> Mm mm. Now the skeptic in me is rearing its head and making noise. Many people experience the sense of contact with external (to their consciousness) mind or forces.

>>One explanation is the fact that we have an illusion of mental unity when in fact we are two brains (although only one maintains the phenomenon known as "the stream of consciousness"), and they sometimes disagree and they sometimes imagine that the other brain's signals is outside.

>>If that is too crass for you, I can testify that these feelings are easy to produce in meditation, and can be almost overwhelmingly convincing. The Buddhist tradition warns of this as a path to be wary of, and I think this advice is wise.

I became interested in this aspect many years ago when problem solvers, like Edison, spoke of the answer to problems coming to them during sleep.

>>This is universally reported: it is always wise to "sleep" on an important decision.

It either had to be the brain working overtime or the subconscious acting when the thinking mind was still. After finding out that the problems were solved with information that was not formerly known to the individual I began to suspect that the subconscious was a link to a universal knowledge.

>>Your hypothesis needs scientific rigor. Have you checked the literature to see if anyone has studied the concept? I can imagine ways it could be tested.

I know that this was a little off-topic, but it may one day be found that many of the occurrences that man has attributed to a god actually comes from man himself. The search for the perfect religion may bring man full-circle to himself.

I will see what my wife tells me (she's the psychologist in the family, I am only a would-be astronomer--really retired geek).

I will see what my wife tells me (she's the psychologist in the family, I am only a would-be astronomer--really retired geek).

I would expect none other than skepticism.
Each of us have different personal experiences and experimentation that lead us to the conclusions we have in life.

Each thought we have is truly a prayer and the history of mankind is filled with different methods and results of prayer.
Prayer not only goes outward, but inward to the subconscious also.
Many believe that prayer often gets things moving in the direction desired.
Non-religious people may use strong desire instead of prayer.

I use the examples of prayer and desire as principal directives to the subconconsious as to the path we wish to take in life.

Sure, many of the examples in religions could lead to non-productive actions; many of the examples in religions could lead to very productive actions.
Radical religious extremists seem to have allowed the seemingly unproductive examples to overshadow the productive.

This non-productive/productive attitude is not limited to the religious, it effects all people and is up to the individual to decide the path they wish to take.

Watch the posts on this forum. It is pretty easy to tell the people that have chosen various forms of depression to rule their lives.
It is also easy to pick out those that have chosen to be investigative, open minded, and somewhat happy with their life choices.
I don't include the times when we are just having a bad day.... :)

The particular form of mental imbalance (one that is drilled into humans while they are young and before they can begin to think critically) known as *religion* offers homo sapiens the world's most comfortable and appealing lie; that the body will die, but that there is some special little metaphysical spark inside--the "soul"-- that will never die.

Borrowing a card from my deck, huh? You use my exact words.

Please show me where ---

""The particular form of mental imbalance (one that is drilled into humans while they are young and before they can begin to think critically) known as *religion* offers homo sapiens the world's most comfortable and appealing lie; that the body will die, but that there is some special little metaphysical spark inside--the "soul"-- that will never die.""

-- is an an exact use of your words.

Watch the posts on this forum. It is pretty easy to tell the people that have chosen various forms of depression to rule their lives.
It is also easy to pick out those that have chosen to be investigative, open minded, and somewhat happy with their life choices.
Which category would you place me into, DanF?

Which category would you place me into, DanF?

Nap, I am not going to get into such things with anyone. I just enjoy the many personalities that post here.

Hahaha, I see your unspoken answer as easily as if you had written it.

I would expect none other than skepticism.
Each of us have different personal experiences and experimentation that lead us to the conclusions we have in life.

>> It is this understanding of different perspectives that leads us to avoid dogmatism and to be tolerant. I trust you appreciate that when I say I am a little skeptical, that doesn't mean I reject, but only that I have strong doubts. Rejection would be cynical, a different thing.

>> This reminds me of my attitude toward ghosts, or claims that some child is the rebirth of someone. I don't exactly believe these things, but I do very much wonder and am open--much more so than claims of channeling or alien abductions, which I have no problem rejecting outright. We should have a scale of acceptance/rejection about some things--to not believe is different from to reject and to think something likely is different from to believe. <<

Each thought we have is truly a prayer and the history of mankind is filled with different methods and results of prayer.
Prayer not only goes outward, but inward to the subconscious also.
Many believe that prayer often gets things moving in the direction desired.
Non-religious people may use strong desire instead of prayer.

>> Desire is a major source of suffering--via frustration, envy, and so on. It is well to learn to avoid desiring things and accept what comes. This is why some poor people are happier than some rich people. Frankly when I prayed, I never prayed for anything, since that seemed unworthy, and now I don't meditate for anything either.

>> I am not saying that such efforts might not have effects like you describe.<<

I use the examples of prayer and desire as principal directives to the subconscious as to the path we wish to take in life.

>> When we perform generous, honest, compassionate, wise, loving, and otherwise good acts that are motivated to help and actually do help, we alter ourselves to the good. When we do the opposite, we alter ourselves to the bad. I suppose you could say it is the "subconscious" that gets changed, but I would say it is our entire being that is altered. <<

Watch the posts on this forum. It is pretty easy to tell the people that have chosen various forms of depression to rule their lives.

>> A perceptive point. <<

It is also easy to pick out those that have chosen to be investigative, open minded, and somewhat happy with their life choices.

>> It is hard to say what makes a person happy; for some it is physical pleasure, for others it is ego-gratification. I am not sure that wisdom and compassion will make everyone happy, but I think in the long run they trump everything else. <<

--Martin

Hahaha, I see your unspoken answer as easily as if you had written it.

No unspoken answer was intended, Nap.