sv81:
I think most Christians, particularly the devout Catholics and "born again" Protestants, would be more likely to say that there are many types of evil but only one True Good.

On 2001-11-10 19:12, Tom Mazanec wrote:
sv81:
I think most Christians, particularly the devout Catholics and "born again" Protestants, would be more likely to say that there are many types of evil but only one True Good.

I am a Christian, and I would actually say that while Good takes many forms, all ultimately deriving from God, it's Evil that is depressingly similar over and over, once you break through whatever facade its using today.

On 2001-11-09 08:27, jcarson71 wrote:
My suspicion is that the founders drew from a tradition which told them of the basic evil and corruptibility of mankind. To prevent this evil from dominating in the form of tyranny, they conceived of a government that would constantly be hobbling and wobbling along its 3 legs (judicial, executive, legislative).

The Christian influence is undeniable, because of the core doctrine that humans are in a fallen state and in need of divine (ergo not state-administered) redemption. To make the best of this evil situation, the oringinal intent was to limit powers.

The Federalist Papers makes this position on their part fairly explicit.

The Theist influence also was important, because it draw from very Rationalist ideas--i.e., Newton's clockwork universe of natural physical laws was an inspiration for what they considered to be natural human laws that were not dictated from above but simply "Self-Evident."

You really can't deny the influence of either religion in this ragtag bunch of hothead revolutionaries.

The writings of de Tocqueville speak eloquently of the strange split in the American character, between intense religious activity and an equally innate tendency toward secular cultural institutions. This was 2 centuries ago, by the way, so this tension is not new.

How many months will it take before you think we can definitely answer this topic's question Yes or No?

Hey, Mr. Mazanec, did you ever read that 'private message' I sent you some weeks ago? :smile:



p.s. I still say, "Go Browns!" :smile:

On 2001-11-10 19:57, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

I am a Christian, and I would actually say that while Good takes many forms, all ultimately deriving from God, it's Evil that is depressingly similar over and over, once you break through whatever facade its using today.

Congratulations, your words mirror what several catholic theologians have said. Specifically, many writers have stated the bordom of evil is one of its most prominent characteristic. That line of thought, and the sources that support it was the material I withheld, pending interest by the group.

The facade of evil, the fashionable, the attractive, the quick and easy, are all packages or faces that lure us in that direction. We have 5th Avenue to thank, with the marketing gurus that study human nature, for giving us a science of selling, that exploits our human weaknesses by perpetually repackaging products, concepts and ideas, all for our consumption.



Good or virtue has many faces and forms, and arises from many different religious orders. Some of which are not at all obvious. One analogy is the phrase that there are many paths up the mountain, all sharing the same view on the top.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2002-01-01 00:16 ]</font>

You might call this article the "Kettle Calling the Pan Black"
http://www.jordantimes.com/Sun/news/news5.htm


Syria tells UN: Israel brought terrorism to Middle East




DAMASCUS (AFP) ? Syria accused Israel of bringing terrorism to the
Middle East and seeking to exterminate the Palestinian people on the pretext
of a ?fight against terrorism,? in a message to UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan.

?Israel is carrying out a policy of extermination of the Palestinian people and
is sustaining its occupation of Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian territories,?
the Syrian charge d'affaires, Faisal Maqdad, told the United Nations, in a
message to the UN published Saturday by the Syrian press.

The message is a reply to information sent recently by Isreal to the UN,
?criticising Syrian support for resistants in Lebanon and Palestine against
Israeli occupation,? the Syrian press said.

Syria has 10 Palestinian organisations on its soil, backing the fight against
Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and it supports the Lebanese
Hizbollah movement, which spearheaded the anti-Israeli resistance in
southern Lebanon.

Maqdad says:? Israel refers to the massacres (that it carries out against the
Palestinians) as its struggle against terrorism.?

?It is Israel that drew terrorism to the region and the Israeli leadership have
been called upon to appear before international courts for carrying out
terrorist activities,? the Syrian information continues, referring to the court
process underway in Belgium against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Maqdad reasserted Syria's will to ?fight against all forms of terrorism within
the framework of the United Nations.?

He explained that Syria ?has since the 1940s received (since the creation of
the Jewish state in 1948) Palestinians driven out by Israel and opened its
doors to them, while supporting their rights of return and self-determination.?

Syria is on the US State Department list of countries sponsoring terrorism.

"Christians had good reason to fear Islam, which soon conquered Spain and held it for
centuries. But because Islam has little attraction for Christians, the West has generally
failed to grasp its appeal for others, its profound and permanent hold on the minds of
believers. Unlike the Christian West, the Muslim world has never had crises of faith like
the Reformation and the Enlightenment."

From:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran210.html

Dated November 9th, 2001

On 2001-11-10 17:45, sv81 wrote:
...
Respectfully, I submit that there are not different types of atheists. To believe otherwise is to be mistaken. Most christians understand that there many types of good, but only one type of evil. If you want me to lecture on that subject, and quote my sources, I will.

Actually, you are mistaken. An atheist is only defined by their unbelief. But other than that, an atheist can manifest this in many ways. And am I to take it that you believe that atheists are evil?

Suffice to say, not believing in God could mean you believe in something else, (like Big Bird or the Cookie Monster), but an atheist is an atheist. To not believe in God, (as many choose not to do), is a single thing, and that thing only.

Actually, the definition in atheism only includes a non-belief in god. That definition, however, is very broad. Take a look at the differences between nihilists, secular humanists, transhumanists, etc. The differences are far reaching. In fact, the only thing that these people have in common is that they chose to not believe. Saying that all atheists are the same is the same thing as saying that all Christians are the same. Should I lump you together with the nazi Christian Identity groups? I suggest you not do the same to atheists.

With respect to the American Hate Groups, of which I have no official memberships, but instead seek to understand, I can say none that I know devaluate life as you suggest.

I disagree. They can kill other people with absolutely no conscience. There is a difference.

Most scream for justice, a justice that perhaps the majority believe is deluded. Nonetheless, they can be more easily reasoned with, primarily because they are not atheists. Sure they can be labeled evil, wrong and a thousand other things, but internally, they adhere, for the most part, to an ideology that (1) is God fearing, and; (2) value life in a significant way.

I disagree again. I've experienced the opposite. Most atheists that I've come across believe heavily in free inquiry, and are VERY strong believers in democracy and in human rights. In fact, most atheists feel at least a little persecuted by people who think that atheists are evil. When Bush Sr. can say that it is impossible for an atheist to be a true American, that gives you an idea of why atheists tend to believe in democracy. In the viewpoint of an atheist, his non-theism represents freedom. To me, being an atheist means that I am not a prisoner to large religious schools of thought. In fact, ever since I became an atheist, I've felt more free to think. As a result, I've became much more respecting of human rights and of democracy.

From what I experienced, only a nihilist atheist (which is not even close to being representative of the atheist population) devalues life. Contrary to popular belief, most atheists tend to value life highly. Even if atheists do not believe in god, most do have a philosophy. Secular humanism is probably by far the most common atheist philosophy. Secular humanist are VERY strong defenders of democracy and human rights.

Religious hate groups are god fearing, and their value for life is limited to anyone who believes in their extremely narrow view of how things should be. For everyone else, there is no value for life. Many underground white and black supremacist groups actually cheered the 911 attacks. If this is not a devalue of life, I don't know what is.

I don't stand ready to defend Al Queda, but I'd rather try to understand someone who believes in God, even an different God than mine, than try to understand an atheist.

I don't understand why. Does it really make a difference whether or not the person masterminded the 911 attacks on America?

Basically there is much less hope for the atheist. He has chose to be beyond reach of both God and the one who believes in God, and thus is impaired in a dimension of understanding that quite literally 'makes all the difference in the world.'

Typical atheist bashing BS. If you think that an atheist is somehow less of a being than a theist, then you have obviously gotten your information about atheists from people like Pat Robertson. From what you have written, I can tell you that you have absolutely no idea what goes on in the head of an atheist, nor of atheist values. You cling to the false stereotype that atheists are somehow empty in their heads, or empty in spirit. But this is absolutely not true. Atheists are just as capable as anyone else. To say otherwise is to imply ignorance of humanity.

On 2001-11-11 11:31, madscientist wrote:

An atheist is only defined by their unbelief.
Actually, the definition in atheism only includes a non-belief in god.

Most atheists that I've come across believe heavily in free inquiry, and are VERY strong believers in democracy and in human rights. In fact, most atheists feel at least a little persecuted by people who think that atheists are evil.

In the viewpoint of an atheist, his non-theism represents freedom.

In fact, ever since I became an atheist, I've felt more free to think.

Contrary to popular belief, most atheists tend to value life highly. Even if atheists do not believe in god, most do have a philosophy.

From what you have written, I can tell you that you have absolutely no idea what goes on in the head of an atheist, nor of atheist values. You cling to the false stereotype that atheists are somehow empty in their heads, or empty in spirit. But this is absolutely not true. Atheists are just as capable as anyone else.

Do you see the self-contradiction of what you have written?

are you all really so confident that you are right, that you are willing to waste so much time boggled down in BS to which there are no answers. As a wiseman once said "who cares if theyre european spcialists, they could be fascist anarchists it still wouldnt change the fact that i dont have a car"

I have a very good friend, a schoolteacher, who is an atheist and professes no belief in any sort of God or gods. Interestingly, she is also a moral conservative, opposed to abortion (except in extreme situations, such as the mother's life being in danger, etc.) and gays in the military. She is also homeschooling her daughter and encouraging her to retain her virginity. She is a big believer in marriage and family values. While I don't necessarily agree with her on all these issues (she's become much more conservative since having a child, btw), you surely cannot say that this woman has no morals or doesn't put value on human life, just because she believes that all life arose by chance in the primordial soup without any sort of divine inspiration, creation, or intervention.

Personally, I find such a theological view extremely depressing and nihilistic and tend to believe in a combination of creation and evolution--that yes, we did evolve, but that it was probably engineered and orchestrated by God. But that's just me.

On 2001-11-11 13:53, sv81 wrote:

On 2001-11-11 11:31, madscientist wrote:

An atheist is only defined by their unbelief.
Actually, the definition in atheism only includes a non-belief in god.

Most atheists that I've come across believe heavily in free inquiry, and are VERY strong believers in democracy and in human rights. In fact, most atheists feel at least a little persecuted by people who think that atheists are evil.

In the viewpoint of an atheist, his non-theism represents freedom.

In fact, ever since I became an atheist, I've felt more free to think.

Contrary to popular belief, most atheists tend to value life highly. Even if atheists do not believe in god, most do have a philosophy.

From what you have written, I can tell you that you have absolutely no idea what goes on in the head of an atheist, nor of atheist values. You cling to the false stereotype that atheists are somehow empty in their heads, or empty in spirit. But this is absolutely not true. Atheists are just as capable as anyone else.

Do you see the self-contradiction of what you have written?

No, please point it out.

On 2001-11-11 15:07, Justin'79 wrote:
are you all really so confident that you are right, that you are willing to waste so much time boggled down in BS to which there are no answers. As a wiseman once said "who cares if theyre european spcialists, they could be fascist anarchists it still wouldnt change the fact that i dont have a car"

In that case, I am more of an agnostic. But for all practicality, I am an atheist. I have not found any evidence for the existence of god. When I do find evidence, I will believe.

I don't get this "I have not found any evidence for the existence of god" thing, Mr. Reed.

Haven't you and I chatted on the internet?

What, do I have to personally come to St. Louis and meet with you FTF? :smile:

On 2001-11-11 16:42, madscientist wrote:

In that case, I am more of an agnostic. But for all practicality, I am an atheist.

Now don't start backsliding on us now. You went from Atheist to Agnostic all in one Sunday afternoon. That's a lot of progress for a Mad Scientist.

I have not found any evidence for the existence of god. When I do find evidence, I will believe.

Perhaps you many never find God. He might find you instead.

Perhaps you saw the evidence, but didn't recognize it.

Perhaps you seek that most elusive phenomenon, a burning bush.

I can tell you that all atheism is nihilistic. Now, people do substitute many things for God: scientific inquiry, a secular moral code, self indulgence, and even phlanthropic activity. However, they constitute poor replacements, for many reasons, not the least of which is the concept of pride.

Again, I must stop, lest someone takes offense to my position, as has happened before. Suffice to say, at 19 or 20, you are still young and I'm sure many would echo that you have plenty of time to "discover" your role in the cosmos. I wish you well.

On 2001-11-11 18:45, sv81 wrote:
...Now, people do substitute many things for God: scientific inquiry, a secular moral code, self indulgence, and even phlanthropic activity. However, they constitute poor replacements, for many reasons, not the least of which is the concept of pride....

pot, meet kettle. he's a lot like you.


TK

On 2001-11-11 18:45, sv81 wrote:

On 2001-11-11 16:42, madscientist wrote:

In that case, I am more of an agnostic. But for all practicality, I am an atheist.

Now don't start backsliding on us now.

He is not necessarily backsliding. It all comes down to clear definitions -- which are in oh so short supply these days. If you cut him a little slack and discuss this matter intelligently with him, you may even convince him to proclaim himself agnostic (which I suspect he actually is)...that is, if agnosticism is acceptable to you. And this brings me to my point in writing. I have been eagerly awaiting your response to his request that you elucidate the contradictions in his earlier post. I am not saying that I agree with you and I am not saying that I disagree with you. Again, this is supposed to be an intelligent discussion. I would like to read your response for my personal edification.

Perhaps you seek that most elusive phenomenon, a burning bush.

Not so fast, Don Juan. I agree that redheads are less common than blondes and brunettes in the general population. But elusive? Believe me when I tell you that they are out there and they can be "fiery."

I can tell you that all atheism is nihilistic. Now, people do substitute many things for God: scientific inquiry, a secular moral code, self indulgence, and even phlanthropic activity. However, they constitute poor replacements, for many reasons, not the least of which is the concept of pride.

With all due respect, you have made no effort to demonstrate how any of these things are "poor replacements," nor have you demonstrated how pride is even relevant. I am not saying that I disagree with you or that I do agree with you. All I am saying is that you are not backing up your assertions. Please at least try.

Again, I must stop, lest someone takes offense to my position, as has happened before. Suffice to say, at 19 or 20, you are still young and I'm sure many would echo that you have plenty of time to "discover" your role in the cosmos. I wish you well.

There is truth in what you say but there is no need to be condescending.

Stonewall:

Again I imagine we are at that point (like a week ago) where you said "{o}ur perceptions are clearly irreconcilable." Perhaps not 'clearly' (for little is) but a problem exists here.

I can only say that atheism isnt a "thing". It's a lack of a thing: the belief of God. The contradiction doesn't reveal itself unless you leave the atheist paradigm, and recognize the void for what it is.

In slightly more concrete terms, atheists are not a defining class of individuals. They do not have a characteristic in common based on what they don't believe.

See, irreconcilable.

I assume you might say that those without cars are carless - a definable class. However, faith, as I understand it, doesn't work that way.

People without faith do not have a handy, fungible filler.

I did say: "Now, people do substitute many things for God: scientific inquiry, a secular moral code, self indulgence, and even phlanthropic activity."

All the secular humanists are in that camp.

I also said that they are poor replacements for faith, not because they are such inferior choices, but because they don't act as a replacements.

As you can tell, I make a distinction between replacement and substitute.

I wish there was a simple answer for you.


With respect to our Madscientist, moving from a position of denying God, to that of merely not understanding him, is a quantum leap - a good thing. To revert back, as I attempted to humorously note "backsliding" is a joke and nothing more. Similarly, saying he has years to figure it out isn't condesending at all. I wish him, and you, well.

I hope you can live with that.

God is logically unprovable because of the implicit limitations in set theory. That is, beings with only natural items at their disposal cannot prove--by logic--things which exist outside of the natural.

Still if you accept the idea of cause and effect, you need to seriously consider God as a possibility. After all, a ball just doesn't take off and fly through the air by itself. Someone kicks it. And something motivated that person to kick the ball. And so on and so on and so on. Ultimately when we move back through the chain of causality, there has to be an Uncaused Cause or an Unmoved Mover or a First Cause to get it all started.

Evidence says that the universe as we know it DID have a beginning--by our reckoning, from our frame of reference, this occured about 15 billion years ago. Who or what began it? Was there a universe before ours? Who knows?

Really though, it doesn't matter if it all began then. Reality could have begun a trillion universes before ours. It might have even begun in the future(!) and time travelled into the past in a crazy feedback loop.

But simply stated, reality doesn't work unless there is cause and effect. At some point, by induction, we almost have to say that there was or IS a First Cause--or God if you will.

No logical deduction doesn't close the gap here, because the reasoning would end up circular if it tried to. But it gets awfully close.

We live in a universe strangely "tailored" that allows enough time and substance within to generate an extraordinarily large information content. Other universes would not allow this if very subtle parameters were only slightly altered. This has truly amazing implications if ours is the only universe around--and the notion of a "multiverse" falls from favor. Is God behind all this? Who knows?

Another God-approaching question is that of sameness and difference. We could live in a universe where everything was pretty much the same. It would be a boring place. There would not be enough information to keep us occupied. Then there is another possibility. We could have existed in a universe where there was too much difference. With too many things different from one another, we could not find similarities and make metaphors, or even be able to spot changes or patterns because all things would be constantly different. For some strange reason, things are not too alike from other things. Things are not too different from other things. We seem to live in a universe that allows what we call "meaning." Why? Why should there be "meaning?" Why should we have crazy notions from this meaningful universe like "perfection" and "eternity" and "infinity" and "being" and "nothingness?" Maybe things were SUPPOSED to make just enough sense... of course I freely admit that I say what I say with my scientist's hat tossed briskly aside, and I am now parading around with my ill-fitting metaphysician's hat on. But c'mon! Intuitively, Something's got to be out there! I don't claim to understand It, and perhaps It is just as imminent as It is transcendent.

So, while the doctrines of mainline Christianity may seem a little arbitrary at times and unreasonable, I think that it is just as unreasonable to absolutely deny the existence of a God. Agnosticism is the rational choice, but belief is so much more fun!

On 2001-11-09 07:02, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

Did our current system of laws evolve from religious rules? Yes.

Mr. Butler
Isn't there a remote possibility that these moral obligations (that are common to most established religions) are in fact logically required for a social species such as mankind to exist and flourish. Religion may have been a very natural progression that evolved in order to place powerful controls on otherwise uncontrollable individuals in society. In other words couldn't the laws have come first.

Bill Murray

On 2001-11-11 23:49, wmurray,42 wrote:

...Isn't there a remote possibility that these moral obligations (that are common to most established religions) are in fact logically required for a social species such as mankind to exist and flourish. Religion may have been a very natural progression that evolved in order to place powerful controls on otherwise uncontrollable individuals in society....

that's exactly what i said 5 pages ago, when i posted this:

one could easily argue that laws against things like murder and theft are not necessarily based upon some sort of religious code of morality, but instead upon a practical, secular code that identifies murder and theft as counterproductive and a threat to societal security and integrity.

well, ok, it's not *exactly* what i said, but it makes the same (as of yet unaddressed) point.


TK

Bill Murray (with a nod from Troll King) proposes...

Isn't there a remote possibility that these moral obligations (that are common to most established religions) are in fact logically required for a social species such as mankind to exist and flourish. Religion may have been a very natural progression that evolved in order to place powerful controls on otherwise uncontrollable individuals in society. In other words couldn't the laws have come first.

Entirely true. I have gotten in trouble in the past for advocating an evolutionary biology perspective. Books like ?On Aggression? suggest that any social species with natural weaponry will have both aggressive and restraining emotions/drives. Hunting, seeking dominance over a peer group, and the defense of a territory are three behaviors often involving threat of force or use of force. These behaviors are found commonly among many species, notably the pack hunters.

There are also restraining drives, such that use of force is often minimized. Injury and loss of life are often avoided in natural environments. Conflicts become almost ritualized. However,my feeling is that man?s emotions have not at all adapted to the increased lethality of his weapons. Technology is simply advancing more rapidly than human evolution. If one closes to a certain range and throws rocks and sticks to intimidate one?s rival tribe, one might get an idea of which tribe would win a conflict without too many serious injuries. If one closes to that same instinctively proper range, and opens up with automatic weapons, the dynamics are entirely different.

There is a distinction between an genetic drives, culture and law. Most species are dominated by their genetic drives. Man is far more cultural than most species, and unique in having written law. We would have to firmly define terms like ?emotional drive,? ?law,? ?religion? ?moral obligation? and other key phrases before we could meaningfully decide which came first. It is entirely plausible that man had culturally passed on moral laws before he had religion.

But is it relevant? The role of genes in determining behavior is debatable, but in my opinion very real. It came first. Who knows whether law or religion developed first? During hunter-gatherer and agricultural empire days, secular and spiritual leaders shared the functions of teaching, making, enforcing and judging behavior. As the industrial democracies developed, the secular authorities became more dominant. While today?s secular laws may be drifting further away from the traditional religious laws, clearly this is an evolutionary process. Modern secular law came from older religious law, though both draw on something older and more basic.

On 2001-11-12 07:19, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
The role of genes in determining behavior is debatable, but in my opinion very real. It came first.

What an intellectually significant statement.

Without openly agreeing or disagreeing,(or stating any opinion); such a position has some far reaching social consequences.

I could ask:

(1) do all humans have essentially the same set of genes?

(2) if there are differences amongst people, either in intensity or variety of genes, does that make a difference in how the lives of those individuals plays out?

(3) aside from the difficulties in defining words and behaviors, is there some merit to the idea that when it comes to a unifying set of rules for society, one size does not fit all?

(4) what structure would society take for it to fit all people? Is that possible? Is western civilization and specifically the United States the closest approximation to that society? What past or present saculum fits that structure the best?

(5) lastly, is it possible that western thought has a unifying set of social rules, which we refine over time, but other civilizations on this planet, due to a different gene pool, require a different society? Could their society, as a reflection of their constitutents, be incompatable with ours?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-12 18:12 ]</font>

On 2001-11-11 18:45, sv81 wrote:

Now don't start backsliding on us now. You went from Atheist to Agnostic all in one Sunday afternoon. That's a lot of progress for a Mad Scientist.

Definitions and Perceptions, sv81. Basically, an agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there is a god. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god. Usually, someone who is an agnostic is 99% sure that god doesn't exist. And since an agnostic does not have a belief in god, they are atheists by definition. I am an atheist, but also a free thinker. Although I don't think he exists, no one has proven that he doesn't exist, or cannot exist. As a result, I have an open mind. So while I don't believe, I don't say that it is impossible.

Perhaps you many never find God. He might find you instead.

Perhaps you saw the evidence, but didn't recognize it.

Perhaps you seek that most elusive phenomenon, a burning bush.

Assuming that god exists, god would've convinced me if we really wanted to. Remember that god is omnipotent, and omniscient.

I can tell you that all atheism is nihilistic. Now, people do substitute many things for God: scientific inquiry, a secular moral code, self indulgence, and even phlanthropic activity. However, they constitute poor replacements, for many reasons, not the least of which is the concept of pride.

My view: God is a human creation. God is actually a memeplex. He exists in your mind. The biblical story of creation has it backwards. God did not make man in his own image; man made god in his own image. For better or worse, god is a personification of human traits. God can be abstract, or concrete. Many Christians, especiall conservatives, seem to speak of god as a concrete being, while many others speak of god as an abstraction. Since the concept of god comes from abstraction originally, one can say that the concept of god is an abstract personification of human traits, such as love, sharing, joy, hope, etc. These traits are manifested in this universe by humans. These are human traits. When people "praise god", they are praising the cherished human traits. Likewise, Satan is the abstract personification of what humans consider evil. To symbolize the world, humans have developed spirituality. Humans have developed symbolism based upon emotion, and thus, we have spirituality. Later, worldviews were developed around these spiritual concepts, and religion was born. In god, we symbolize and personify what we consider good, happy, and moral. But as history shows, when we describe god, we are only describing ourselves, or what we could become. In this case, we have replaced ourselves with god. While we are praising god, we should be praising humanity. Humans are the originators of all art, poetry, music, hope, despair, love, wonder, science, and understanding. Humans are the beings with godlike (and satanlike) traits. Assuming that we continue to use our godlike traits, we will eventually become what many people would consider god. To many foragers, Americans are a god-like being. In many ways, the ability to fly qualifies are being gods. In fact, in South East Asia, a culture was discovered during World War II. When the culture was revisited later, it was found that they founded a new religion based upon what they saw in World War II. They saw flying entities with the ability to cause large amounts of fire in the air. To a medieval civilization, we would seem to have supernatural powers. Civilization would seemingly be teeming with powerful wizards and sorcerers. We can do extraordinary things with mana (electricity). Similarily, civilization 5,000 years from now will seem godlike to us today. What we see will resemble what we consider god today, but it will only be the evolution of the same traits that we admire, and that we implement in a being we call god.

This brings me to another point. What qualifies as god? The first thing that was deified was the sun. Nearly all religions, even Christianity, worship the sun somehow. But why not? The sun is a perfect contender for the title of "god". Why not? It allows life to flourish on Earth. Later, scientists found out that it was just some large ball of fusing hydrogen. So does this mean that the sun is not god? Depends on your definition and your person of what the sun is, and of what god is. So you can't argue that the sun isn't god. One can make an argument that black holes are a deity. Earth could be a deity. Even a conscious being with an amazing amount of power to spend space-time might not be the god. But then again, it depends on our perception. 5,000 years from now, they might just be an energy-based lifeform, reminiscent of the "wormhole aliens" on STS9 that the Bajorans worshipped as god. A good example of this is Star Trek V. When the Enterprise reached the end of the galaxy, they encountered a species that appeared to be omnipotent. But it was just revealed to be another species. As it turns out, supernaturalism arises only because of ignorance. Knowledge makes supernaturalism go away by removing the veil. So what does that say about god? If we encounter something godlike, then how do we know if it is god, or some alien? Will the distinctions matter? At which point does knowledge of about an entity removes the veil of supernaturalism that surrounds it? When man walked on the moon in 1969, all strips of supernaturalism were removed. Will the same thing happen in the future? If there is a true god, how will we know it? Will knowledge of this entity convince us that this entity is not god?

Do you kinda get my drift?

Again, I must stop, lest someone takes offense to my position, as has happened before. Suffice to say, at 19 or 20, you are still young and I'm sure many would echo that you have plenty of time to "discover" your role in the cosmos. I wish you well.

You are not offending me. In fact, I've met FAAARR worse.