Evidence for God

[thoughtforfood]

TFF,

Yes, you're correct, and I knew right after I posted that YOUR point was in-fact, not an "argument." I apologize for trying to make a point at your expense. I was simply trying to draw the distinction between the respective belief in "god" and the reliance on "dogma." I am also trying to lay an answer at the foot of the original question, and that was: "Is there evidence for God?"

Need you believe in the bible to believe in god? Are those of a differing sect, yet within the framework of a belief in a higher power, relegated to a position of damnation? Does God transcend religion, or is he constrained by it?

Within our own hearts beats faith, and while I, with whole-heart, agree with you that it is, at present, a question only answerable therein, someday that may change. If the capacity for realizing the divine was originally instilled within us all, and from that revelation ignited the spark of man's higher aspirations and beliefs, then who is to say that further revelation is not possibly forthcoming. It would be a basic tennent of the Christian faith, would it not?

Not being able to prove god now, does not preclude that ability in the future. It is, and should be, enough to simply believe, but as Anselm, 11th Century Bishop of Canterbury said:

"It would be negligent upon becoming firm in our beliefs, that we fail to try and understand WHY we believe WHAT we believe."

God does not depend upon our understanding, but our understanding may most certainly depend upon God.

Peace.

And I agree with what you are saying also. You present very challenging thought on the subject, and are obviously well versed in the depth and breadth of the question.

The quote from Bishop is also very important. I think many times I fall into the desire to "know" and have that be the final movement in my search. What I continue to forget is that I am merely in the midst of uncovering truth that is infinite. It is human to seek a point of termination. I think it is a search for comfort. I think I was an atheist because I wanted to end the continuing question to which I could find no answer. (If anyone reading this is agnostic or atheist, do not take that as a judgement upon you, it is merely my self appraisal) I think I am finally becoming more comfortable with the point being the search, not the answer. It is a strange firmness upon which I stand, but to me it is the most solid footing I have ever had.

I also believe, as a Christian, that we will experience the reality that is God. I am not sure when, and am far from being an apocalyptic prophet. I try to learn daily, but still take many days off. I am after all, human.

May God continue to bless you in your search.

 

[thoughtforfood]

With or w/o a helmet?

Will God rate your judgment/lack there of?

Do certified/baptized Christians score more points than non-believers? How does that work? Do Mormons gets more points for temple work?

UCI rules or we make them up as we go?

I am sincerely asking you not to post on this thread. It has become a very interesting conversation, and you only seek disharmony and chaos. I understand that you may have reason to want to disrupt other threads, but please do not do that here.

 

[thoughtforfood]

What about the Jews?

Do they get credit in a Christian world?

These are rlevant questions.

Food for thought.

Go back a page or two and you will find my answers to your questions. Seeing that you continue to bring nothing new to the discussion, would you consider posting your actual beliefs in the form of a coherent set of paragraphs (or less)? I would be more than happy to discuss this with you if you have something about which I have not already posted. Otherwise, I do not have the time to reiterate what I have already written.

And again, please stop if you only want to be disruptive.

 

[limerickman]

I am sincerely asking you not to post on this thread. It has become a very interesting conversation, and you only seek disharmony and chaos. I understand that you may have reason to want to disrupt other threads, but please do not do that here.

Ignore him - his messages are being removed.

 

[thoughtforfood]

Ignore him - his messages are being removed.

Thanks Lim, I feel badly that you have to spend time doing that.

 

[limerickman]

Thanks Lim, I feel badly that you have to spend time doing that.

No problem, TFF.

Actaully this has been a very informative thread : enjoyed reading the contributions.

 

[limerickman]

From the Guardian :



It is like Daniel going into the lions' den, though Professor Richard Dawkins might not appreciate the biblical comparison. Britain's leading atheist is spearheading a campaign in America to challenge the dominance of religion in every day life and in politics, insisting that the millions of US godless deserve to be heard too.

Atheists in the US "have been downtrodden for a very long time. So I think some sort of political organisation is what they need", he said.

Maybe David and Goliath would be a better analogy. Religion is palpable in US schools, places of work and public institutions. God is invoked by soldiers and politicians in a way that would seem inappropriate in Britain. George Bush used God as one of the reasons for invading Iraq. In Congress, where godlessness can equate with being unelectable, only one representative, Pete Stark, is prepared to admit to being a non-believer.

According to a study published last year by the University of Minnesota, Americans distrust atheists more than any other minority group, including homosexuals, recent immigrants or Muslims.

Now the best-selling author of The God Delusion and chair of public understanding of science at Oxford has set up an organisation to help atheists round the world, including the US.

In an interview with the Guardian, he said: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

His organisation, established two months ago, complete with T-shirts bearing a large red A, is the Out Campaign. "It does not mean outing, definitely not ... we want to encourage people to come out because there is a big closet population of atheists who need to come out."

His estimates, which square broadly with official data, show that atheists in the US account for about 10% of the population. "I have had many letters from people saying 'I don't dare give my opinions. I am afraid of my family. I am afraid of my wife, I am afraid of my husband. I am afraid of my work people. I am afraid of being fired'."

Prof Dawkins appeared as one of the stars of the Atheist Alliance convention in Crystal City, Virginia, at the weekend.

He admitted he was "a little bit hesitant" about being an Englishman talking to Americans and he showed "a certain amount of deference" when asked about US politics. "But I think that this country is so powerful and what goes on politically here is so enormously influential, the rest of the world is entitled to have a say. We don't get the vote here but I think people are entitled to express an opinion."

Although religious groups denounce him on websites and radio talkshows, he has not received abuse at public meetings; religious people tended not to turn up - "which in a way is a shame", he said.

What did he hope an atheist bloc in the US might achieve? "I would free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community. I would like to free everyone from the assumption you have to be religious in order to be a decent person or to be moral. Obviously stem cell research and all the interference with scientific research that goes on [should stop]. Obviously the whole creationist interference with education [should stop] but I think, more positively, I would like to see people encouraged to rejoice in the world in which they find themselves, the universe in which they have been born, to take full advantage of the tiny slice of eternity they have been granted."

He had been encouraged by the apparent distancing of Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential race from the Christian right. But he found "very depressing" the profession of faith from all the Democratic candidates. "I guess the Democrats have to pretend to be more pious than the Republicans because they are under suspicion of not being."

Darwin's Rottweiler

Richard Dawkins' vocal insistence on the pre-eminence of science (he is nicknamed Darwin's Rottweiler) and his rigorous attempts to dismantle notions of faith and belief have earned him many critics, from those who complain about his evangelising tone to those who confidently predict he will spend eternity in hellfire. His latest work, The God Delusion, incensed believers with its insistence on the hypocrisy and unreliability of scripture and its lampooning of creationists. It also annoyed some in the scientific community for suggesting that few top scientists believed in God and that separating the rational and the religious was intellectually impossible. In particular, Dawkins is angry at the way children are indoctrinated into faiths and takes issue with the unimpeachable taboos that protect religions from rational scrutiny.

 

[Carrera]

First question: Belief in God? Do I believe? Probably but not necessarily the idea of God being monotheistic or male in the image of human beings.
For instance, I also feel quite positive there is life on other planets in other solar systems. A careful look at basic biology and adaptation of species to environment would indicate life has a means of adapting to many apparently hostile situations. Neither your or I can breathe thousands of feet under water but there are some species that can do so.
There's every probability there is indeed life on other planets but not as we imagine it it, so to speak. Probably, if actual civilisations exist millions of light years away, these cultures will have writings and documents handed down, depicting God in their particular image.
Just a thought. Isn't it a touch arrogant to assume God is in the image of only one species in an infinite cosmos?
Second matter: The gospels: The earliest we have is the gospel of Mark. Something like 60 A.D. - well after the time of Tiberius and Augustus.
We do know early Christians even at the time of Nero didn't have an actual Bible as we understand it today and, in many cases, the Bible they did have contained texts which are now classified as gnostic. So, for many years, the Christian faith was venerated and recalled by word of mouth before what we know as the gospels was actually put into Greek writing.
Even more perplexing, the various clusters of churches and ecclesiastical scholars sort of slugged it out over matters such as whether Jesus was equal to God, inferior to God, was resurrected in the flesh or as a spirit, was filled by the Holy Spirit after baptism or even at birth.
That is, early Christianity had no rigid dogma - not till the times of Constantine when scholars were forced to put together some kind of official dogma.
So, the problem I have here is trusting in ancient scholars to interpret the life of Jesus and his teachings on my behalf.
I mean, even St Paul and St Peter didn't actually agree over many points of doctrine and this was just scratching the surface of overall debate. There is now also much evidence to suggest Paul may have been gnostic and not mainstream in the modern sense.
So, God, yes it makes logical sense but can any single religion be taken literally? For me, no.

 

[tt1106]

Wow, those are all very involved questions. Sadly, God doesn't have a 1-800 number to answer questions. Believe me, I've got plenty,myself. Just this morning, I was thinking why did God harden the hearts certain people, only to have them be destroyed by certain other people. I realize it is an exercise in Faith etc and there are lessons to be learned.
In my own life, I have seen mountains moved. I have friends who I love, who have mountains moved in their own lives.
If you remember the story of Peter walking on Water, You'll remember that Peter walked on water until he felt Fear. Jesus chastises him for doubting. As Humans we can shoot holes in every theory, find alternate realities and arguments afor all things. In most courtrooms, you cannot get 12 people to agree one definition of reasonable doubt.
Good luck in your search, my brother/sister.

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

I, for myself, simply choose to consider answering the question at its origin. Rather than work my way backword through history and human defined developmental theories on the workings of god, I simply CHOOSE to bypass the intermediate teachings of man, and look into my own heart and mind for the conclusion.

Can what I see, feel, know and believe simply be explained by a cosmic chance of explosive force? Do I believe that if I placed a bomb in an auto wrecking yard and I blew the parts up enough times, then a Mercedes would drop from the sky?

Do I believe that love is simply a chemical reaction in my brain, and that its sole purpose is the continuation of the species? Are the conceptual ideas of god only the misfirings of electrical synapses in my brain, and the brains of others? Is the idea of god only an aberrant interpretation of worldy sensual input somehow naturally skewed?

If I can dream, and I do, where do dreams of things I can never see, ideas that can never be observed come from? I cannot accept, will not believe, that it is all simply a biological reaction to some accidental stimuli.

I am more than my biology, and that for me, is proof of god.

I don't need a religion for god, for me, a religion is a tool toward understanding the conclusion, an interpretation of god that if used correctly, through fellowship, can help me understand the truths better. Religion, for me, tries to put a common thread together for disparate groups all trying to reach pretty much the same conclusion, answer the same questions.

We should celebrate ALL religions of peace and understanding, because it is the differences that can unite the most disparate of groups toward these same ultimate goals of peace, brotherhood, and understanding. Exclusionary teachings simply deny the ultimate conclusion. Trite as it is: "aren't we all god's children?"

 

[nns1400]

From the Guardian :



In an interview with the Guardian, he said: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."




What did he hope an atheist bloc in the US might achieve? "I would free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community. I would like to free everyone from the assumption you have to be religious in order to be a decent person or to be moral. Obviously stem cell research and all the interference with scientific research that goes on [should stop]. Obviously the whole creationist interference with education [should stop] but I think, more positively, I would like to see people encouraged to rejoice in the world in which they find themselves, the universe in which they have been born, to take full advantage of the tiny slice of eternity they have been granted."

In particular, Dawkins is angry at the way children are indoctrinated into faiths and takes issue with the unimpeachable taboos that protect religions from rational scrutiny.

This man's opinions are appalling. If he is worried about the public's perception of atheists, then he should be quiet. I'm a Christian with plenty of atheist friends, and none of them would agree with this tyrannical view of "freedom" (though I'm sure bk would).

These comments make it sound like he would have been right at home with Stalin, or in Mao's Cultural Revolution.

I am free to teach my kids my values and beliefs, just as any atheist may do with their own children. When they all grow up, they will have to decide for themselves. (Madeline Murray O'Hare's son is a Christian pastor....)

Dawkins' statements are arrogant in the extreme.

As for "but I think, more positively, I would like to see people encouraged to rejoice in the world in which they find themselves, the universe in which they have been born, to take full advantage of the tiny slice of eternity they have been granted." he is talking about the reality of religious faith for millions of people.

[Furthermore, politicizing atheism is no better than politicizing belief. I caught the end of the last Democratic debate, and was disgusted at Russert's question to them: What is your favorite Bible verse?

And they all gave their utterly phony, rehearsed answers. I thought I was watching the friggin' Miss America pageant. It was an insult to the faithful and the unbeliever. Maybe next time they can ask them which they like better: puppies or kittens?]

Anyway, glad the thread is still fruit for discussion. Was kind of finished contributing for now, but I couldn't resist this one.

 

[limerickman]

NNS : Dawkins view on established religions has had a lot of coverage over this side of the pond.
His book "The God Delusion" has caused a lot of debate.

I expect that a lot of Americans may have never heard of, or read, Dawkins and his views.
The guy is an academic - and brilliant one at that.

I think that the views that he holds - he holds sincerely.
I disagree with his view on God/religion - but I think that he is sincere in what he puts forward.

I would recommend his book - even to people who believe in God.
Dawkins raises interesting questions in that book.

 

[Felt_Rider]

I was not always a believer and was someone who scoffed at the idea for the first 32 years of my life. Now as a believer I find it odd that many aethiest accuse Christians as, "shoving it down our throats" also shove their ideas of aethiesm down everyone else's throats. Like this Dawkins character. I realize that many aethiest do not bother and when I didn't believe I didn't share my skeptism with others. I am sure the greater multitude simply keeps their view points silent.

Why does it matter if believers want to believe in God?
I can fully understand why a non-believer does not believe in God because again I lived with those thoughts for many years. So I understand the skeptism, but why do some non-believers feel so threatened by those who believe like this Dawkins guy? What is ultimate motive for doing away with Christian belief? Is it because he feels that Christians limit him or control government with their votes? Does the presence of Christians make Dawkins feel guilty about some of his own moral choices? If more felt as he did it would make him feel more comfortable with those choices? Perhaps he feels limited in liberal freedoms?

I can clearly tell you why I express my beliefs to others. Because I have been on both sides of believing and not believing. I accepted Christ as saviour and believe He died on the cross for me and anyone else that will believe and I cannot deny the change in my life going from not believing to now being blessed to know who He is. This change did not come from reading the bible, from a preacher or from anyone else. I was actually drunk and in the gutter of my life when I called to the One I didn't believe in for some reason He showed me who he is and I accepted. The next day all that formerly believed in completely changed and again without exterior influence like the bible or another person trying to convince me. It wasn't until later that I started reading the bible. As stated earlier the bible helps those who don't believe make their point and it is used by believers to help show who Jesus is, but the bible was never intended to prove God's existence. It was intended for those who believe to learn more once they do believe. It is like a road map of how to live once faith is established. Faith is the foundation and the starting point and without it one will never see who God is and will never be convinced. So if I express my belief to another (in most cases I express when someone locally ask me why I believe) it is because I believe that God instills into His own sense of hope, peace and joy that this world cannot provide. I believe there is a revelation of how to live, to prosper, how to help others and how to endure when the storms of life come.

Are some aethiest as guilty of shoving their view points as Christians?
My feeling is yes, but my question is why do they feel threatened?

I have been approached by other religions that wanted to share their ideas with me and I simply said, "Not interested." That's pretty simple to do and I don't feel threatened that they believe in a different god. If a person wants to remain as a non-believer there is nothing I can do about it so I wouldn't dare try to shove my idea down their throat. If they ask me I will certainly tell them.

 

[nns1400]

NNS : Dawkins view on established religions has had a lot of coverage over this side of the pond.
His book "The God Delusion" has caused a lot of debate.

I expect that a lot of Americans may have never heard of, or read, Dawkins and his views.
The guy is an academic - and brilliant one at that.

I think that the views that he holds - he holds sincerely.
I disagree with his view on God/religion - but I think that he is sincere in what he puts forward.

I would recommend his book - even to people who believe in God.
Dawkins raises interesting questions in that book.

I know who Richard Dawkins is. Sometimes, Lim, I think you find us more provinicial over here than we really are. I have not read the book, but it has received quite a bit of coverage here as well.

Fine, he's sincere. I will take issue however with anyone, with any beliefs, who think that children should not be taught their parents' beliefs, but those of someone else who knows better. In a free society, children and adults have the opportunity to hear and consider other people's beliefs.

As a Christian, I might share my beliefs with others, but I do not think unbelievers' children should be "free" from their parents' "indoctrination." And if I did I would rightly be castigated for it....

 

[nns1400]

I was not always a believer and was someone who scoffed at the idea for the first 32 years of my life. Now as a believer I find it odd that many aethiest accuse Christians as, "shoving it down our throats" also shove their ideas of aethiesm down everyone else's throats. Like this Dawkins character. I realize that many aethiest do not bother and when I didn't believe I didn't share my skeptism with others. I am sure the greater multitude simply keeps their view points silent.

Why does it matter if believers want to believe in God?
I can fully understand why a non-believer does not believe in God because again I lived with those thoughts for many years. So I understand the skeptism, but why do some non-believers feel so threatened by those who believe like this Dawkins guy? What is ultimate motive for doing away with Christian belief? Is it because he feels that Christians limit him or control government with their votes? Does the presence of Christians make Dawkins feel guilty about some of his own moral choices? If more felt as he did it would make him feel more comfortable with those choices? Perhaps he feels limited in liberal freedoms?

I can clearly tell you why I express my beliefs to others. Because I have been on both sides of believing and not believing. I accepted Christ as saviour and believe He died on the cross for me and anyone else that will believe and I cannot deny the change in my life going from not believing to now being blessed to know who He is. This change did not come from reading the bible, from a preacher or from anyone else. I was actually drunk and in the gutter of my life when I called to the One I didn't believe in for some reason He showed me who he is and I accepted. The next day all that formerly believed in completely changed and again without exterior influence like the bible or another person trying to convince me. It wasn't until later that I started reading the bible. As stated earlier the bible helps those who don't believe make their point and it is used by believers to help show who Jesus is, but the bible was never intended to prove God's existence. It was intended for those who believe to learn more once they do believe. It is like a road map of how to live once faith is established. Faith is the foundation and the starting point and without it one will never see who God is and will never be convinced. So if I express my belief to another (in most cases I express when someone locally ask me why I believe) it is because I believe that God instills into His own sense of hope, peace and joy that this world cannot provide. I believe there is a revelation of how to live, to prosper, how to help others and how to endure when the storms of life come.

Are some aethiest as guilty of shoving their view points as Christians?
My feeling is yes, but my question is why do they feel threatened?

I have been approached by other religions that wanted to share their ideas with me and I simply said, "Not interested." That's pretty simple to do and I don't feel threatened that they believe in a different god. If a person wants to remain as a non-believer there is nothing I can do about it so I wouldn't dare try to shove my idea down their throat. If they ask me I will certainly tell them.

That was a great post.

Just the other day, someone told me that to someone without faith, reading the Bible is like reading someone else's mail. It doesn't make any sense if you don't know the person who wrote it....

 

[jhuskey]

Humans are prone to seek out similarities in others. I ride a bike and don't understand why everyone doesn't enjoy riding.
I love Sushi but a lot of people ask me how I can eat the stuff and they have never tried it.
Opinions are not certain truths and not all truths are absolute.
My advise is to hold to your truths but keep an open mind and seek to be more enlightened.
While seeking to be enlightened ride fast and train hard and after you are enlightened ride fast and train hard.

 

[limerickman]

I know who Richard Dawkins is. Sometimes, Lim, I think you find us more provinicial over here than we really are. I have not read the book, but it has received quite a bit of coverage here as well.

I didn't use the word provincial........however given the fact that many Americans are unaware of a lot of issues even in their own country, I made the presumption that you may not have been aware of Dawkins or his views.
So apologies.

I would suggest that you read his book.
It is very interesting - even if you're not an atheist.

Fine, he's sincere. I will take issue however with anyone, with any beliefs, who think that children should not be taught their parents' beliefs, but those of someone else who knows better. In a free society, children and adults have the opportunity to hear and consider other people's beliefs.

That quotation from Dawkins that you cite above - was made in a more rounded context in his book.
I suggest that you read his book before applying your view as to his stance
on indoctrination.

 

[Felt_Rider]

It would be interesting to hear a discussion between Dawkins and Ravi Zacharias. I have heard Mr. Zacharias at a conference and the link provided he references Dawkins.


I know of Mr. Zacharias more so than Dawkins and was only familiar with Dawkins because of Mr. Zacharias confronting the writings of Dawkins.

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

I didn't use the word provincial........however given the fact that many Americans are unaware of a lot of issues even in their own country, I made the presumption that you may not have been aware of Dawkins or his views.
So apologies.

A somewhat insulting truth, but "truth" just the same. I recently read a thesis, and I will try and find the reference (although I imagine there are many), about the dangers of over-diversifying a population. Not dealing 'specifically' with religion, it did however talk about the disintegration of society through the acceptance of too many divergent ideas.

By definition, a cohesive society, shares a limited set of views. This is why we seem to understand that sharing our personal views with those "that do not believe" causes strain.

In America we promote diversity as a concept, yet we rebel against it in practice. We stress teamwork concepts, while promoting individual freedoms. We show our prejudices everyday, and I do know that we are not alone in this as Americans.

America may, through its wealth, geographic, ethnic and cultural bonanza of diversity may well be the melting pot of extremes, and if the tendancy for the human search for "lowest common denominator" be true, to any extent, arguably, then perhaps that is what America seeks. My definition, of an "accepted" American "LCD" is manafest in our culturally consuming preoccupation with entertainment. We can ask Carerra if the same may have been true for the Romans. Debauchery didn't kill the Romans per se', diversity did. Are Americans building the "Virtual Colleseum" right now?

It is however the paradox that while too many divergent views lead to a disintegration in human relationships and often violence in the extreme case, it has historically been true that often the 'powerful' views of innovative individuals lead to the most influential changes. Good or bad, to include the moral interpretive element.

I have not read Dawkins (yet), but I wonder if his thesis deals with the unification of idea, and with respect to religion, Atheism offers the only possible scenario. There is only one interpretation of "zero." no god, is, well, no god. Is this why we "instinctually" or just practically, divide ourselves into groups, religious or otherwise?

Okay, I'm headed to the Furnace Creek 508 today, watch "Alpine Ibex," I am not he, alas, but I am one of his crew. Want to believe in god, watch a man pedal his bike 508 miles through the desert in 28 hours or so, you'll believe in man, and in the divinity of his creations! Both man and desert at sunrise.

the508.com

 

[Carrera]

"I am more than my biology, and that for me, is proof of god."

Yeah, I do think you have a point that it's worth taking a real good look at Mother Nature. I know I do. Ever noticed how a tree that's been severely damaged with have a virtual fit and push out new shoots everywhere? Even plants try to survive. Notice how the leaves extend and try to adapt to seek out sun if it gets too shady? Mother Nature is very smart.
As for biology, this is a tough question. I know the brain is an organic computer with memory banks and even mood patterns controlled by hormones. For me, the entire organism is like a computer but there needs to be mains (or energy) for it to function. Einstein demonstrated you cannot destroy energy so when you die, what happens to the energy?
However, this is far from believing the idea of my entire being surviving death and dwelling in paradise in bodily or spectral form. This, for me, is where religion plays the role of trying to explain away death and make it more palatable.
Nobody knows the answer but after thinking all of this over a bit over the years, I can't help but believe the ancient Egyptians and Pythagorians came closer to the truth - reincarnation of some sort.
As for God, this is logical view but how do we know if God is a plurality or individual, male or female or even beyond all of that? Why do global religions insist on the idea God has to be a man when femininity plays such a huge role in the natural order?

I, for myself, simply choose to consider answering the question at its origin. Rather than work my way backword through history and human defined developmental theories on the workings of god, I simply CHOOSE to bypass the intermediate teachings of man, and look into my own heart and mind for the conclusion.

Can what I see, feel, know and believe simply be explained by a cosmic chance of explosive force? Do I believe that if I placed a bomb in an auto wrecking yard and I blew the parts up enough times, then a Mercedes would drop from the sky?

Do I believe that love is simply a chemical reaction in my brain, and that its sole purpose is the continuation of the species? Are the conceptual ideas of god only the misfirings of electrical synapses in my brain, and the brains of others? Is the idea of god only an aberrant interpretation of worldy sensual input somehow naturally skewed?

If I can dream, and I do, where do dreams of things I can never see, ideas that can never be observed come from? I cannot accept, will not believe, that it is all simply a biological reaction to some accidental stimuli.

I am more than my biology, and that for me, is proof of god.

I don't need a religion for god, for me, a religion is a tool toward understanding the conclusion, an interpretation of god that if used correctly, through fellowship, can help me understand the truths better. Religion, for me, tries to put a common thread together for disparate groups all trying to reach pretty much the same conclusion, answer the same questions.

We should celebrate ALL religions of peace and understanding, because it is the differences that can unite the most disparate of groups toward these same ultimate goals of peace, brotherhood, and understanding. Exclusionary teachings simply deny the ultimate conclusion. Trite as it is: "aren't we all god's children?"