"Why do you have to congregate over being an atheist?"
I talk to "Skepchick" Rebecca Watson, whose story of getting hit on in an elevator at an atheist convention went viral on the internet. The short clip above is me setting up the story. Click continue to the whole discussion.
ADDED: Here's the description of the elevator incident and the discussion that follows:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
268 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 268 of 268Gabriel Hanna, when atheists argue against the existence of god, they use this as a proxy for all supernatural things. To attempt to prove the error of all supernatural things by noting how silly some particular superstition seems, this strikes me as shallow thinking. Some made up thing like a pink unicorn does not have the same standing as transcendent experiences felt by the majority of humanity. Of course, they could all be faking it for various reasons.
I say this as an atheist, or possibly due to the force of some of the above arguments, I am really an agnostic. I just don't know anymore.
Gabriel Hanna,
My post had nothing to do with specifying a definition or claiming that those here purporting to be atheists were anything but.
What it was was a tongue in cheek remark specifically referencing Crack's claims that the USSR, Cuba, and NK were not atheistic nations and that all the "real" atheists had left.
Some made up thing like a pink unicorn does not have the same standing as transcendent experiences felt by the majority of humanity.
Good luck arguing that scientfically. People take pink unicorns less seriously than God, but a belief in either is not scientifically justifiable.
What about ghosts? Belief in them is nearly universal throughout history? Is refusing to believe in ghosts a religion?
@Christopher: Crack's remark did have that true Scottish flavor to them, indeed, and I'm not sure exactly what he meant by it. But you will find many other commenters in this thread, religious ones, passing judgement on who is really an atheist/agnostic and making distinctions that atheists tehmselves do not.
GH,
I didn't intend to question anyone labeling of their personal beliefs, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.
As a general rule I will take someone at their word, so I do believe that you and revenant are atheists.
Granted there are some basic requirements (e.g. a Christian has to believe in Christ and an atheist can't believe in God) but so long as those are met I don't care about the person's reasons behind them.
I was mainly annoyed with Crack claims about who is and isn't an atheist.
Neither the absence of god nor the existence of god can be argued scientifically--at least not to much avail. What experiments could you do?
It is a philosophical question.
The pink unicorn argument was one you put forward and it was a philosophical argument. It was shot-down by a stronger philosophical argument. (As has been pointed out by me as well as others here, in philosophy an Ad Hoc is not normally granted the same value as something which is nigh universal)
I don't see how science comes into into it.
I am not an atheist.
But I don't believe anybody hit on her.
Unless he had dark glasses and a dog.
Just sayn'
Boringheads never fails to be consistent.
The question I have is: "Why are some people so afraid of my invisible friend?"
Also, Christians and others can "believe" in evolution whilst still believing that God set spark that got it all going so to speak.
It seems that some believe that the mere sight of a cross, or star of David, or other overtly religious symbol will somehow force belief...
Atheists who argue against "magic pink unicorns" by using science are refusing to acknowledge that their non-belief is just as much a religiosity as belief in magic pink unicorns is religious.
Not really, no.
What we're doing is pointing out to you that when someone posits an idea that (a) is contrary to observed reality, (b) lacks any supporting evidence, and (c) is contrary to the your own personal experience, the normal human response is to dismiss the idea.
I once heard a three year old swear up and down to his mom that the big juice spill on the carpet was because a bear had peed there. My immediate thought -- which I continue to hold to this day -- was "there's was no bear".
According to you, believing that takes as much religiosity as being Christian. I would say you've dumbed down the word "religion" to the point where it no longer means anything. Heck, it takes more faith to believe that toddler was lying than it does to believe there's no god. After all, bears provably exist.
Bloggingheads isn't taking registration for commenters now, so I'll say here what I would have said to the anti-Althousians there.
Why do people even bother listening to those things if their minds are already so made up beforehand? The barrage of complaints about Ann's existence are childish and stupid.
The pouting about Ann appearing on Science Saturday are just about as stupid, on the several occasions when they were accompanied by great fanfare for Ms. Watson. Is she a scientist? Is she doing molecular biology when she's not promoting herself? No. She's a blogger.
That's not a very good comments community over there.
Geez, all this religious argument.
I was just amused that the guy said "Don't take this the wrong way", and she immediately took it the wrong way.
I'm still reading over there ... the comments are truly, literally infantile ("Waah, Althouse is yucky!")
RW, from her pic--getting "hit on" in a elevator by a hetero male? Sounds like every lesbian's wet dream.
Gabriel Hanna,
@Christopher:To be fair you may not be a true atheist as apparently a lack of belief in God/gods is no longer the basis for such a label (if Crack is to be believed).
Don't you think you know what you believe and what that makes you better than we do?
Nope - that no longer counts as far as i'm concerned. We live in a world of post-modernist "you can believe what you want to believe" nonsense. That's why so many NewAgers get away with claiming the atheist label. I say let reality define what you are. We know enough that it can be done. I don't need your self-serving lies, deployed to hide what you don't want to be known. I want the truth:
And no one expects The Crackhouse Inquisition.
But Atheists are like Amy Winehouse, very nonconformist and it is important that you know that about hem because. Becacuse its important.
Forget about atheism, just get her to a good dentist. Sheesh - did they hit on her teeth?
Plenty of atheists have moved on, people just don't notice them. "Silent majority" and all that.
@Grabriel....
It seems it's more than just not believing because then you'd be an agnostic. You wouldn't care and wouldn't be offended by every expression of faith.
Of course like I said it's mostly anti-Christian.
You are confusing rational atheists with the Leftist sort, like "Skepchick" (who, as Glenn Reynolds pointed out, seem to have used up all their skepticism on one topic). They aren't the same.
Rejecting all arbitrary claims as having no greater cognitive status than pig grunts, is the reasoning mind's first and most crucial filter in distinguishing signal from noise. This is what distinguishes rational atheism from "skeptical" atheism.
Skepchick doesn't know that, of course; she wouldn't be a Leftist if she did. And that's why she and other "skeptics" like her are the perfect foil for religionists to keep up this "atheism is a religion" canard; Leftists like "Skepchick" do in fact function very similar to religionists at the epistemological level, especially in regards to made-up, arbitrary beliefs. That's why they function so very well as the foil for this "atheism is just another faith" meme. It's like they were custom-fit for that role. It's no wonder that religionists act as if all atheists were skeptics like "Skepchick"; the other sort would just ruin the whole game.
We do exist, and despite your strongest wishing, aided and abetted by the likes of Skepchick, our atheism is not a belief at all; it's merely a negative, a reasoned rejection of the arbitrary. No more than that.
We've just moved on, you see. We have no dog in a fight of competing faiths.
You guys make my brain hurt!
True, the guy obviously wasn't being a rapist, since he didn't actually rape, but it rather makes one wonder whether he was playing with the scenario, examining his feelings about raping, etc., in order to get it fixed in his mind how he would do such a thing if he ever decided to do it.
Wha? Guy makes a lame play and you claim its rational to wonder if he was a rapist doing his first trial run?
What a load of bullshit.
"Face blindness?"
Okay, she's a kook. She's unable to deal with a man gently propositioning her and she makes a big deal out of it. What a sissy.
Somebody hit on her? And she turned him down? A girl that ugly should have dragged him back to her room and raped him.
I like Rebecca Watson, at least her public persona. I think her "scientific outlook" is misguided by political correctness. She seems to embrace the belief that life is how it should be as opposed to how it is. Every time I hear her talk about a subject it makes me wish Perry DeAngelis was still around to rebut her.
ricpic,
rh is just saying he's a Trinitarian.
I'm an atheist and would reply to all the religionists here, but I've moved on.
I just want to say that I love love love this argument:
"Why do we have five fingers? When Acanthostega crawled out of the sea back in the Devonian it had 8 digits on each foot. A proper God would have had us descend from Acanthostega instead of some five-fingered tetrapod, so that we could have worked in base 16 all along, instead of having to translate base 10 to octal or hexadecimal."
I'm still a Believer, but I have to translate RGB to hex all the time, so I sympathize.
Skepchick is a complete fraud, and her elevator hissy fit shows it. No true "skeptic" would so completely swallow hook, line, and sinker the humanities-based BS of gender theory. "Oh no," her and her fellow idiots cry, "you're DIVERTING to protect your PRIVILEGE!"
Is Atheism a religion?
Let's see...
Religion involves belief in something that cannot be rationally proven. Hey, can't prove a negative, right?
Religion as the anti-religionists see it involves attempting to coerce behaviors in others that complies with the beliefs of the religion.
So -- check, Atheism is a religion. No wonder they're so religious about it...
*behavior
MarkG said...
Atheists do have (at least) one good point: How religion can inhibit the development of a society. There are a lot of good examples, past and present (Iran). That's the point of some atheist activism. There's a political component.
Shall we speak of Mao and Stalin and the literally MILLIONS of people they had killed through their atheism?
And yes, if you must know, I do lean toward atheism/agnosticism.
SBVOR,
"But, I find militant atheists FAR more annoying than anybody else along the religious spectrum. Militant atheists are among the most intolerant people on the planet."
Ironic you would say that. Do you view yourself as being intolerant for saying it? Do you view yourself as a militant agnostic?
I don't see you keeping your mouth shut about your beliefs. Why do atheists get labeled "militant" for expressing theirs?
It's quite clear that needle on your moral compass is more than a little bent if you find someone expressing their opinion on the existence of god more annoying that Islamists flying planes into buildings full of innocent people.
"The First Amendment provides for freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. "
Be specific here. Who are you complaining about and what exact policy are they advocating that your smug little motto is addressing.
@Dust Bunny Queue,
"However, as a person myself with a scientific mind .."
I've read your comments and you show a lack in this area.
"To dismiss the hypothesis without the proper process, indicates that your non belief is based on faith in the non existence and not scientific proof."
Another bit of evidence of the same.
It's not a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be disproven. If you had a "scientific mind" you'd have known that.
You are also equivocating on the definition of faith. So you can barely think in a logical fashion. I'm pretty sure you are totally unaware of your inadequacy in this area just like a tone deaf contestant on American Idol is unaware of theirs with regard to singing.
The Crack Emcee said...
Every word you said is bullshit. I know what a deity is, but have never believed.
Sorry, but in this regard, i think you are the one full of shit. If you understand what a deity is, and in that understanding choose not to believe is simply a cop-out to affirm your atheism. Every civilization and culture has accepted the notion and concept of deities and simply because a few choose not to doesn't shelter you from that belief or denial of existence whether you choose not to believe. That is a get out of deity belief card. Yet, you don't state why you choose not to believe because the only two choice are to believe or to not, but both require explanation at the minimum to yourself.
The circumstances of my birth prevented it, making me a born skeptic/atheist. I think what you're saying is true for most "atheists," like Watson, but we real ones are out there, too. I diss the rest of these posers regularly.
This bit of rationale I can respect.
Because unbelief is easy, but denial is hard work.
> ...Why do those who are atheists and scientific think that the existence of God or even fairies is impossible?
This is why I hate religion. It forces people not to think. Because their beliefs would not survive exposure to thinking, they have to suppress their ability to think critically in order to maintain them.
One of the poor fools who quit his job and blew all his savings believing that Rapture was imminent said afterward, "I was skeptical at first, but I believe in God so I pushed the skepticism away."
It is hard not to conclude that anybody who can wonder if we're really sure that fairies don't exist has, at some point in their life, been taught that reason is bad, to ignore their own judgement.
That's why I hate religion.
Ugh. Was that second vid supposed to be an intelligent conversation? Pitiful.
"Why don't atheists just move on? Okay, there's no God. Do something else!"
Let us worry about that, and how about you do something else. Why are you so concerned about atheism? Why don't you "move on" or "do something else"?
Do you hear the implicit bigotry in your own statment? Do you imaging that atheist don't "do something else". We do plenty of other things and for most of us this is a minor part of our lives. If it weren't for bigots like you we'd spend even less time on it.
"Why do you have to congregate over being an atheist?"
Most of us don't congregate. Generally those who do have very good reasons to do so. For example to combat the bigotry and ignorance expressed by both of these statements of yours.
Oligonicella said...
It's always amusing to simply replace atheist/believer in any argument.
Your absolutism is misguided. By the way, how do you come by any absolutism (however wrong) honestly without asserting the existence of God?
Still works exactly as planned, just different target (eg: "Why don't believers just move on? Okay, there's a God. Do something else!"
I disagree.
I understand where Christians get the Great Commission. What's the source of an atheist's command to "go and make believers of all nations"?
Like I said, it's an amusing comment thread.
The religious flailing about trying to get the un-religious to support something that does not exist.
Again: Why should I waste time attempting to prove non-existence? I'd sooner try to prove that Lewis Carroll's Alice was the locus of reality.
The religious will always attempt to engage what they cannot see and understand. Without their faith, they are bereft of life, and they cannot conceive of death as a total end of life, with nothing beyond the corruption of the flesh.
God is the sum of all fear.
I have no fear of death, therefore I have no need of gods. Because gods do not exist, I have no fear of death. Death is simply a biological fact. The cessation of life, after which the flesh rots away, or is consumed by fire.
Why is it so critical to think otherwise?
Because unbelief is easy, but denial is hard work.
Believing there's no god is as easy as believing you're alive.
Huh? Almost the definition of my being an atheist is that I don't congregate, don't evangelise and don't proselytise. You wanna believe in God? Go right ahead. Fine by me. But two-way street, buddy. Respect my choice NOT to believe in God and leave me alone and we'll get along like gangbusters.
"Holding court"???
That tells me all I need to know about Ms. Watson. As much as Ms. Watson might like to congratulate herself on her superior rationality, she's merely substituted one set of irrationalities for another.
I'm going to have to pass on the discussion about atheists (been there, done that, got a dozen t-shirts and now realize it is a waste of time), but I do want to ask exactly how butt-ugly and/or desperate this elevator guy had to be to hit on this weird girl. (I say girl because with that a dye-job and glasses she has to be a 13 year old cosplayer or a rodeo clown. And I don't see any barrels in the video).
"Respect my choice NOT to believe in God and leave me alone and we'll get along like gangbusters."
Exactly who is not respecting your choice? Do people of faith often accost you about not-believing? I mean, how does anyone even know you don't believe unless you bring it up for discussion?
I do realize that many faiths believe in testimony and active recruitment, etc. I run into them quite often but being Catholic I just say, "Hey, thanks, but I'm Catholic - it's beer and bingo for me or nothing" or "Hey, not interested thanks" - both of which work quite well. I've never had any of them keep on me after that and I'm wondering do they act differently if you say "Hey, thanks, but I don't believe in that stuff or believe in God."
To an atheist, is the act of feeling sorry for a non-believer disrepectful? Or praying for them? I've gotten the impression over the years that it is for some reason, although I can't figure out why. If someone wants to pray for me for being a Catholic (it happens), that's fine by me - can't hurt me and the good vibes might even do some good.
Anyway, I just did what I said I wouldn't do which is discuss atheism, but damn I find the almost religous fevor of atheism very fascinating.
Oops . . . "fervor"
Seerak's 9:22 comment is the most insightful thing written on this comment thread, and most of the rest of the comments are merely a fine example of Seerak's points being played out in real-time.
That is all.
"... but I do want to ask exactly how butt-ugly and/or desperate this elevator guy had to be to hit on this weird girl."
Ask your dad about you mom. You'll get the same answer.
I laugh that you spent the extra time to ask other questions from atheists after writing that.
Methadras,
"Sorry, but in this regard, i think you are the one full of shit. If you understand what a deity is, and in that understanding choose not to believe is simply a cop-out to affirm your atheism."
So obviously you are a mixed religion polytheist. Let me ask you a question, does Yahweh have sex with the other gods like Zeus does. He obviously knocks up virgins, but I'm wondering if he has the self respect to interact with his peers.
"Every civilization and culture has accepted the notion and concept of deities and simply because a few choose not to doesn't shelter you from that belief or denial of existence whether you choose not to believe."
Yes, dieties in the plural. If your reasoning is valid then it applies to the very first monotheists in their denial of all the other gods. A polytheist of the time could use your argument to the first Christians and claim they actually believed in all the other gods. That the first Christians were really closet polytheists.
This would apply to the second wave of Christians too. Since the first wave were actually polytheist in denial. Using a kind of mathematical induction every other following generation of Christians are also polytheists.
I and many other atheists understand what a diety is. We don't believe in them. Particular classic conceptions of the Christian god are not only understandable they are self contradictory and therefore that particular conception of a god cannot exist. Which forced some Christians, the more intelligent ones, to have to rework their beliefs in an ad hoc way and come up with what amounts to an ill defined god. When it comes to ill defined gods I don't even think you know what you are talking about. Why on earth would I believe in that.
"Ask your dad about you mom. You'll get the same answer"
Seriously, are you ten years old doing mom insult jokes?
"I laugh that you spent the extra time to ask other questions from atheists after writing that. "
Again, you are very easily amused. Must be nice.
Admit it, you think the rodeo clown is HAWT, don't you?
Ah, the oft-repeated question: "Why don't atheists do...?" where "do" translates roughly to "screw off".
Why don't Christians quit marching around at funerals with "God Hates Fags" posters, having their children handle rattlesnakes, and swindling old people on TV?
Why don't Muslims stop blowing people up?
Why don't Jews stop producing such stupid movies?
Most atheists DO move on. That's why you don't hear from us -- or the generally quiet majority of Americans who do to church on Easter with the family, and neither really believe nor make the effort to disbelieve in religion.
Rebecca Watson was a sort of star in her 20s, in a certain niche. She is probably not sure what to do now.
"We do exist, and despite your strongest wishing, aided and abetted by the likes of Skepchick, our atheism is not a belief at all; it's merely a negative, a reasoned rejection of the arbitrary. No more than that.
We've just moved on, you see. We have no dog in a fight of competing faiths."
Good to know. Unfortunately you don't seem to have any more luck at letting people know the leftists aren't all of atheism anymore than most Christians have any luck at letting people know the extreme Christian groups aren't all of Christendom.
As an atheist, I would venture to say that the vast majority of atheists do just move on I can't imagine going to a confernce of atheists.
as to what AllenS said"
Why don't atheists just move on?
Because they can't. They think that they have a religious duty to convince everyone else to believe what they do
That sounds far more like the religious amoung us then then non-believers, it is a part of your religion for gosh sakes
Admit it. You think your mom is hot.
The Crack Emcee sez:
"We don't know anything of the kind. All we know is Watson over-reacted, and behaved badly herself."
Actually, the only thing we "know" is what Watson has alleged (we've only heard one side of the story -- assuming the story has any basis at all in reality). Her allegation is that a man she never met cornered her alone in an elevator at 4AM and invited her to his hotel room.
Any woman who responds positively to that approach is -- at best -- troubled (as is any man who takes that approach).
Now, has Watson made a mountain out of a mole hill? Yes. But that's SOP for YouTubers in the age of rampant narcissism. That does not change the fact that the alleged behavior from the guy was -- at BEST -- creepy.
(Oligonicella): "The lack of belief in something means no more than a lack of belief. I do not believe in unicorns or fairies. I find no urge whatsoever to attempt to disprove their existence because I have other things to do."
I'll believe this when you label yourself an aunicornist and an afairiest. Atheists define themselves by their opposition.
I'm a materialist. That is, the only things that require explanation are observations and the only things that count as explanations are observations.
When my students ask me if I belive in god, I respond with the question: "Do you believe in nern?". They will then ask: "What's that?", and I say, "That's the point: without a definition, you cannot answer the question".
8. "The major objection to this theory (the Nebular Hypothesis of solar system formation) is best illustrated by a conversation Laplace had with Napoleon:
Emperor Boneparte (the man who commissioned the invention of margarine) inquired of Laplace after reading his theory—“Where does God fit into your system?” Laplace replied: “Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis.”
Professor Ann, thanks for introducing me to rhhardin and The Crack Emcee.
@Brian Macker,
1) I describe my (generalized) experience with militant atheists and, from this, you conclude that my “moral compass is more than a little bent”?
Well, thank you for reinforcing my observation that:
“I find militant atheists FAR more annoying than anybody else along the religious spectrum.”
2) As for your attempt to redeem the behavior of militant atheists by comparing it to the behavior of Islamic terrorists…
My quote was:
“I find militant atheists FAR more annoying than anybody else along the religious spectrum. Militant atheists are among the most intolerant people on the planet.”
A) There is a continuum of behaviors properly described as “annoying”. Islamic terrorism is (obviously) on an entirely different continuum.
B) There are extremes of intolerance and then there are extremes of expression of said intolerance. Again, these are two entirely different continuums. Extreme intolerance can exist in the absence of extreme expression of said intolerance.
"I'll believe this when you label yourself an aunicornist and an afairiest."
I will when I find myself in a argument with people who believe in unicorns or fairies. Especially if they coined the term to refer to me.
"Atheists define themselves by their opposition."
So do anti-abortionists and anti-communists. I'm an anti-communist but I don't spend any time thinking about it because I have better things to do. I thought about it till I came to a decision, and I've heard no good evidence for it yet.
Just because someone calls themselves and anti-abortionist in one context doesn't mean they don't refer to themselves as perhaps a Jew in another.
I'm a Pan Critical Rationalist. I happen also to be an atheist, an anti-communist, an Aleprechaunist (I ran into someone who believed in leprechauns), a father, a gardener, etc.
I don't think non-gardeners spend a hell of time thinking about gardening, and yes people self identify as "I'm a non-gardener".
I can tell you this. I spend as close to zero of my time thinking about god as I can. Problem is that theists keep bringing it up inappropriately.
They also bring up non-belief in inappropriate contexts like funerals. Hint: Don't tell the audience at a funeral how evil atheists are because there might just be a few who are friends or family members of the deceased. It's bad enough having to listen to all your lies about the dead person but having to sit through a defamation too is a little much.
@Brian Macker,
Oh, you poor little thing! You're sooooo mistreated!
The basic human desire to form communities around common interests. Comic book fans have conventions.
The comments are an invitation for religious people to be self-satisfied, as if they needed one:
"I believe they doubt that we live in some randomly-ordered world."
Uh, ok. You can believe that if you want. You also apparently believe in God, so you have a history of believing things for no external reason.
I think it's important to note that most (perhaps all?) persons have a religion in a functional sense.
ELEMENTS OF FUNCTIONAL RELIGION:
By "religion in a functional sense," I mean a collection of opinions/practices which motivate a person's thoughts and behaviors, in the following categories:
- Opinion about the origins of all that exists
- Opinion about the existence and nature of the supernatural
- Opinion about the origins of man
- Opinion about the nature of man
- Opinion about man's problems and if/how they can be solved or helped
- Opinion about right and wrong
- Opinion about truth and how (whether) it can be known
- Practices intended to reinforce and further educate oneself about the details of the above opinions
- Practices intended to assist oneself in living in accord with the above opinions
- Practices intended to propagate the aforementioned opinions to others, either adult or next-generation
You can call all of these by some other name than "functional religion," if you like. You might call them "philosophy of life."
SOURCES OF FUNCTIONAL RELIGION:
In some cases all elements of one's functional religion are gathered from a single authoritative source which jealously guards its brand -- rather like buying an Apple Mac.
In other cases the elements of one's functional religion are selected hodgepodge from disparate sources (a favorite author, a respected college professor, one's own ruminations) -- rather like a hobbyist piecing together a custom PC from off-the-shelf parts.
(Customization seems ideal, if no existing brand matches your needs. On the other hand, the off-the-shelf parts might be incompatible with one another in ways that don't reveal themselves immediately. The "Name Brand" religions have the advantage that, after a few hundred years, their weak spots are well known.)
"RELIGIOUS" ATHEISTS?
Anyway, are some atheists deeply religious? Why yes. Dawkins et alia are deeply evangelical. Chris Hitchens, who I like so much in other ways, gets a tilting-at-windmills glint when Mother Teresa is named, a bit like a hellfire-and-brimstone preacher invited to join a Dungeons and Dragons campaign.
But most aren't that way. Most practice their functional religion much the same way that a purely cultural "Christmas and Easter" Episcopalian practices his religion: With that kind of lukewarmness which makes socializing with people of other faiths go more smoothly.
But I think it'd be an insult to an atheist to deny he has a functional religion as described above. To say that would mean he had an utterly unexamined life, was utterly incurious about fundamental truths and his role in the world.
SBVOR,
Why don't you hang out with some terrorists since you don't find them annoying. Move to Pakistan and live under the Taliban.
You are one twisted fellow.
Why do atheists congregate? That's a very odd question. The answer is, of course, that we're a tribal species. We congregate about everything.
What I find quite odd about the question is that you think congregating has anything to do with religion. It's a side effect, just a gathering of a tribe.
Congregating isn't any more religious than driving, even though people drive to church.
"I propose a religion: There is a God who doesn't want to be believed in."
Precisely true religion. That is the universal religion, called Sarva Dharma, of which all "religions" are expressions, or, sub-sets. "Belief" in God is impossible. ignorant and stupid. Denial of God is more so.
"What should people who believe in this religion do?"
Trust God, rely on God. That is neither belief in nor acceptance of God. What is to believe, what is to accept? Reality is every-present. Trusting God is within man's power to perform. Neither belief nor acceptance is. Trusting God is laughing, dancing and singing one's way through life into death.
Ambition ruins everything. Atheism is dull and doltish.
"Quit this world, quit the next world, quit quitting." Madam Guyon That is trusting God, as she did.
Post a Comment