Lerk's theory of creation....

Lerk's theory of Creation:

In the beginning there was God, infinite and complex and perfect in every way. Yet he had a desire to love and to create. So he created a wondrous universe, a work of art. He thought to himself, to understand a work of art, its true beauty exists in the synthesis between the work and the audience, and the interplay of interpretation. I will therefore create an infinite variety of souls, each with their own unique perspective, so that they can view this work in their own way, and the beauty and understanding of creation can be interpreted and loved as much as I do.
Because I am perfect, yet singular, my viewpoint is singular. Therefore, I will donate small slivers of what I am, which will be individual souls, infinite parts of myself. Individually, they will be imperfect, and it is that imperfection which will determine their individuality.
Then, when all is said and done in this massive performance art I call space, time and matter, I will gather back to me all these individual slivers and recombine them into myself, and they and I will be greater as the sum of the individual parts than we were even alone.
But the energy I use to power this experiment will be LOVE. Those who understand love will understand more of the canvas, those who reject love will only see their own small sliver. But even so, ALL individual viewpoints are part of what is infinitely possible, and therefore valuable to the eventual recombination.
--------

Now, this is what I think God is. You'll note I think of him as actions and intents, willpower and compassion, love and awesome complexity. None of these things are things which an empiricist can measure or weigh or predict or analyze.


The show so far...

In the beginning there was God, before there was anything else. What he is is outside our experience, to the point that we cannot properly understand him through our mortal frame of reference. Thus I do not have God's fingernails to show you or anything like that, but since he exists both outside and throughout our understanding, he is not subject to the same physical empirical laws by which we perceive the universe. OK, if I have not lost you yet, that is the first premise:
1. God is not like us and may be so unlike us as to not be in a form we can completely understand or perceive. He is independent of space, time or matter, so measurements that employ those creations cannot describe him.
2. Although I assign a gender to him, it is out of convenience for my own perception to pick one or the other, I do not think he has any need of gender, obviously.
3. When it is said we are created in his image, I do not consider that a physical image, but rather a spiritual one. In that we have the capacity to love, to create, to cherish, to treasure, we are like God and operate in his image.
God may not possess an "image" that is even recognizable to us, nor need it be. God is will, and by acting willfully we are like gods.
4. The greatest thing that God is love, and sacrifice. Unless you've had to hand over a child that you love to someone else (I have) you cannot understand the depth of what it means to sacrifice something you love. For God to allow that to happen means his capacity to love even to his own pain is above anything we can imagine.
5. God is infinitely more complex than we realize. What we view as dichotomies or inconsistencies are actually just different facets of the same being. (people often point to the old and new testament as contrasts and ask why God is so different).
6. God is an architect, an artist. Look around you and drink in his wonderful works. What some view as nature, I feel as the canvas of the artist, and all the wonderful, terrible and awesome beauty of what's painted there. It has been said that God makes a straight line out of many crooked ones. I believe that God is NOT about requiring perfection, but about understanding the beauty of imperfection and using that to create perfection.

Your construct is an excellent notion. The only thing remaining has to be the game--wherein the stakes have to be interesting and motivating.

It's the only thing you, in your all-knowing, all-powerful selves can do.
Since money is no object, the only thing you have to lose is knowing who you are. You have to forget who you are, pretend you are capable of death--otherwise a few eternities, sitting around, admiring the view, would get pretty tiresome, (to a smart god-fella)
Have to play the game so thoroughly and intentionally that you get totally lost in it. Sickness, health, anger, love, all become important, vastly important, when you forget who you are, and the tougher it is, the more entertaining it is--witness the popularity of reality shows.

constant adulation and extorting praise and prostration under threat of burning in a lake of fire

............FOR EVER..!!!

i like the Buddhist View, they live in their own realm, lost in bliss and pride.. doing their own thing.. however they also exist in Samsara and are subject to the cycle of rebirth old age suffering and death.. and since their unimaginable powers cant get them out of Samsara.. they certainly cant help us.. we are responsible for our own Liberation.

the origins of creation aren't important.. the path of liberation and enlightenment is the most important, so we can better help others to end their suffering is the most important thing.. not stroking some gOD's ego. and by defination a 'Jealous' gOD is actually a Demi-god, ..a full fledged gods failing is 'Pride'.

I was just explaining my own personal view.

:shrug:

christian Churches as a child..

i see Christ as a person inspired by Buddhism that came down the Silk Road which ran right through Palestine.. it had 500 years to travel form India.

Christs idea of a warm and fuzzy god was totally Foreign in his area at the time, it had to come from somewhere else, if you know anything about Buddhism.. his teachings of compassion and service could have come from no where else at the time.. the Jews then were gleefully serving gOD by stoning to death their friends and family for really stupid shit.. just like the Moslem's today.. Allah is so merciful his law only requires a woman to be buried up to her neck and have her head crushed with stones .. if her husband falcely charges her with adultry and wants her out of the way to marry a younger woman.. and she needs 5 women for every mans counter wittines.. and if she loses, her wittinesses suffer the same penalty.. thanks to gOD for being merciful..

Laozi's "Tao Te Ching" also shares many similarities with Buddhism, Jesus's teachings and the OT Proverbs. Whether or not a higher power is merciful doesn't seem to matter-- humans will twist things for their own gain. Islam isn't quite as terrible as people have chalked it up to be either. In the end though, it is man who twists religions and philosophies of love into hate and intolerance. What blows my mind is that so many cannot see the simple contradiction...

any rigid law or pholosophy..

the Buddha on the other hand taught a rigid Noble 8 fold path.. there are do and donts, and taught a specific, one might say fairly rigid, method of training the mind... Buddhism is a path of specific practice. Taoisms goal is to sit and drink your tea and gaze out the window and watch the seasons change as though they were one breath to the next.. it taught no cosmology or mysticism.. Buddhism teaches that there is an underlying nature that frees one from suffering and liberation of rebirth and suffering altogether.

they only sound similar on the surface, but they are totally different.. .

"God" is everything, and everything is "God." There is no need to worship any "god"--the best way to do this is to accept that "God" is as natural as the stars, because it is the stars, the moon, everything. Everything that exists is of equal "divinity," so don't worship this "God"--worship yourself, for you are this "divinity." Worship the moon because it is the moon, not because it is the creation of a "God." Worship the grass because it is the grass, not because it is the creation of a "God.". Worship things for what they are--human, animal, rock, tree, grass, moon, ocean, fire, whatever--not because they are the products of a "God." There is no need for a "Creator," for an explanation of where we all came from--the power of us, of our minds, our hearts, our inherent souls is explanation enough, and it is more important to appreciate the world on its terms, not on supernatural, "divine," "God's" ones.

"There is no need for the 'supernatural'--the natural is super enough."

I can't remember where that quote comes from, but it is my worldview summed up very nicely.

Just my 2 cents.

:hi:

thanks for contributing. :)

I don't know what to call it--pantheism? Except I've heard that pantheism can be very...apathetic....and I'm a strong believer in proactivism.

transcendentalist. Unitarian Universalists get a lot of their "stuff" from the early transcendentalists.

:shrug:

:D

i am not Neurological Traditional... i am Right Brain dominant.. i just dont see this stuff. so does it exist if everybody cant see it.. if the guy next to you doesnt see the trees at all is there really a forest.. or is it a limitation of your perception not to see it doesnt exist..

what's important is power of the mind/heart/soul. A human can do anything he/she puts his/her mind to.

that is the kind of crap the Reich Wingers tell the people they have just screwed out of ever going to college by cutting all the financial aids.. and raising tuitions.. to keep the trailer trash out of their kids schools.. because in a Fascist Society Poverty is a vice..

that statement is a Fascist Ploy to relinquish them of the responsibility of their actions..

create an 'Under Class' and blame it on the poor.. for being lazy

that statement is just NOT TRUE

I'm a FReeper in disguise. Yup, you got me. :eyes:

Truth is, were the world perfect, that would be the ultimate truth of the universe. Think about it. If you don't take money, social standing, anything besides willpower into play, you really can do just about anything you damn well want to. That doesn't mean that there aren't many, many people who, if they want to subsist, have to let go of their long-term goals in order to just concentrate on tomorrow. I know what you're saying, but I think you misconstrued what I was saying.

Would you rather I tell the poor to go hide their heads in the sand, because they're always going to be poor, so go suck it up, and it's all their problem that they're poor, because they could have done something about it? I think that is the fascist argument, and maybe that's what you thought I was saying, but it wasn't. Sorry you misconstrued.

:shrug:

fair chance, my wife has a thyroid disease and is obese, she is a master Pattern maker and technical designer.. she chant get a decent job..

i had a minor back injury 20 years ago, a friend that tried to hire me because i am a technical/mechanical savant told me he got a phome call from his workmans comp carrier and they told him he could hire me but if he did they would cancel his ohter 18 policies and reschedual the paymnents.

sorry but i live in the real world.. not some golden ghetto.. you are deluded and used by the establishement to to paint a rosy picture of the enconomy.. or you just actually believe that crap out of ignorance. my brother says the same thing.. and he is a freeper...so you are guilty by assiciation with those fools

we have had 3 good jobs sent to mexico and china, 26,000,000 jobs have been stolen by NAFTA. there is NO job retraining.. i tried to vet voc rehab because of my back and was they told me i had to be blind and a quadraplegic to voc rehab.. we dont have the money to co to college to get training for a job that will become extinct because another deal was made behind closed doors and was sent to china.. the factories follow the jobs to china.. jobs gone for ever.. the tools are gone for ever

wake the F*** UP

sorry but the truth is nonsense for those in denial... and fodder for biggots

and I'm hardly seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses--I've been called a paranoid conspiracy theorist by many people who are far more moderate than I am. I live in the same world you do, and am coming up in it just as anyone else of my generation is, so I don't see how you are qualified to attack me, call me "deluded," etc. when you don't know who I am or where I come from.

The real world sucks, and we know that, all of us. It always has sucked, always will, and I don't know of anyone who will argue that. Bu$hCo is a murdering tyrant who will be dictator someday if the American people--citizens far more "asleep" than you call me out for allegedly being--don't do things about it. If I am on DU, as a 14-year-old, I rather think I'm perfectly aware of the peril our country is in, and I do believe that America will fall soon if we don't do something.

But like I said before, the power of a human soul is staggering, no matter what "The Man" does to it. How else would we have survived through the eons? I'm not trying to play Pollyanna, view the world through rose-tinted glasses, or any of that. I'm attempting to be realistic, because the cruel, miserable, real world shows that we're not all doomed to die fiery depths in the pits of hell. It shows us that souls are fiery, powerful things--Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., all the civil rights leaders of the centuries who have beaten injustice with "soul-force," as Gandhi calls it, not "body-force."

I'm sorry you think I'm attempting to be naive and foolhardy.

:shrug:

In the real world world people used to look at me and think, "Does he talk?"

"Oh, he's just shy." That's what my grandma used to say, except I'd be staring at one of her friends like they were a bug.

Not so much anymore, I started to force myself out in college, once I realized people weren't going to beat me up anymore (junior high and high school pretty much sucked, every day was a new adventure in pain, so I did my best to be invisible...)

Other than that I must be a lucky son of a bitch.

So, what makes you happy?

Wasn't there a movie called "Triumph of the Will"?

Well we've created our anthropomorphic god.
Now we have to ask where did he (it?) come from?
Did a previous god make our god?
And if our god is all warm and fuzzy, why did he then create an evil entity to give us grief? Is that part of the love?
Maybe our god is a serious screw-up, not a very good god, a poor artist, like the starving artist sale guys.
Of course when we say our god is "infinitely complex" (whatever that may mean) we can pretty much stop trying to understand his (it's) motives. We've set an impossible task for ourselves. So let's not try. Let's just sit back an watch this cosmic theater, since we're pretty helpless anyway and exist at the whim of this creature. We're not responsible for anything, being just actors.
Yep, that about sums it up. The god we've created in our minds is just fabulous and therefore so are we.
And if you don't believe it there is an eternity of hell waiting for you.
Love and kisses.

More like dogma.

No, of course it's not a theory. Seems like speculative fiction to me. I was being facetious in my subject title. It's what the creationists always say when talking about evolution. Obviously a theory would need to have some ability to be tested, which can't be done with the OP or Intelligent Design.

There's something your god wanted but didn't have. Ergo it couldn't have been perfect to start with.

believing that something else will make you happy/fulfilled ..when you already have it and don't know it.

1. God is not like us and may be so unlike us as to not be in a form we can completely understand or perceive. He is independent of space, time or matter, so measurements that employ those creations cannot describe him.


The god you've described is pretty clearly built on the Christian model, eg., the sacrifice of a child. It is nevertheless an excellent illustration of why all religions deal in metaphor, symbol and myth--used here to mean an explanatory narrative, not in the sense of "untruth" or "lie"--to attempt to describe the nature of the divine and attempt to approach it. Persons who can't or won't deal with that symbolic idiom, be they scientific materialists or Biblical literalists, are likely to reject or be shut out of the dialectic.

Wow, it's almost like we're talking about something.

I don't agree with everything (like the "infinite variety of souls" and the concept that the souls eventually are absorbed back into God), but I agree with pretty much everything else in your post. :)

again, its MY theory, so not being a theologian, it ain't perfect.
I think the reabsorption is an extension of the fellowship idea. If God created us for fellowship, then what form would fellowship take with a supreme entity? without bodies, we'd be spirits, and how best for spirits to achieve fellowship than absorption?
It would be consistent with the idea also that no one is married on the other side (the question posed of Jesus of the seven brothers and the widow, of who would be married to her on the other side). If its absorption, marriage would be irrelevant.

However, I'm not sure I'm completely happy with my own theory, but for me, it addresses some gaps in my overall understanding.

Sounds reasonable.

Except I would work harder to eliminate the gender-specific language, lol. I do think it matters to our perception of God and our perception of ourselves.

This definitely suits my expansive view. And I'm often puzzled that more people don't seem to share it.

sorry about that! :)

I did a lot of thinking on this because I tried to figure out what would God get out of the whole thing.

(and admittedly, any analogy will fall short) that as a parent, what would make me happiest isn't necessarily how nice my kids are to me, but how they treat each other, and other people, you know?

I rather think God would be less concerned about worship than about how we care for each other.

why things came to exist?

not sure what you're getting at? can you be more specific?

Theists ALWAYS beg the question.

what a surprise.

Thus, since atheists see no signs of gods, and they (gods) do not add anything coherent to the question of why things exist, it is simpler by Occams Razor to assume that the universe either always existed in some form or came into existence on it's own.

both atheists and theists have the same condundrum.

Either God, or the Universe either always existed or suddenly came into existence. it all relates back to first cause arguments.

At some point, matter appeared out of nothing, or was always present: both are conceptually difficult to deal with.

If you accept that it happened that way for the universe with no proof either way, it stands to reason one would also accept the possibility that it happened that way with a deity. the only difference in the conundrum being whether a sentient entity or random chance is involved....but BOTH ways have the same conundrum: matter must have created itself at some point.

Atheists see no signs of gods, and thus god(s) are an extra (unnecessary in an atheists mind) step.

If Atheists accept that the universe could create itself out of nothing, then its disingenuous to claim a supreme being could not as a proof against a supreme entity.

in other words, if an atheist is able to accept the conundrum sans deity, the mechanism is the same with our without deity, so to fault the mechanism is pointlessly argumentative.

that the Flying Spaghetti Monster belched the universe into existence?

Or that an invisible pink unicorn pooped it out?

See, you're missing the central point here. Postulating a "god" at the very least adds nothing to the explanation, and at worst makes it unnecessarily complex. What you're simply doing is taking the existing mystery and adding ANOTHER layer of mystery, and saying it's the same thing.

Well, let's apply that to all scientific theories, shall we?

Gravity is the force that exists between two objects that have mass. AND is the result of angels pushing things together.

Mental illness is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. AND by demons speaking in your ear.

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over. AND is caused by God invisibly tinkering with our DNA to produce the results he wants.

Any clearer?

I wasn't arguing AGAINST that point. I was making an ancillary point, which you didn't grasp.

My point is that you cannot use the conundrum, in and of itself, as tacit proof there is no supreme entity, if you accept the conundrum otherwise.


Any clearer?

is difficult to make out.

"The conundrum" is not resolved by adding another conundrum on top of it. I can accept "we don't know where the universe came from" without having to accept "god created the universe."

I'm not trying to solve the conundrum. As I stated earlier, BOTH atheists and theists SHARE the same insoluable (or apparently insoluable) conundrum.

the difference is, atheists will often bring up the conundrum as tacit proof there can't be a supreme being, without addressing that the conundrum exists for atheists as well.

perhaps an analogy will help:

Fred and George wish to solve a math problem that involves calculus. Both Fred and George only understand Algebra. Fred says the answer must be 12x and George says the answer must be 13y. Neither can really arrive at an answer without using calculus, which neither understand.
It is therefore hypocritical For Fred to say: "George is wrong because he doesn't understand calculus!" If Fred also doesn't understand calculus. In fact, neither Fred nor George know for sure their answer is correct, but stating George does not know calculus does nothing to prove either correct or incorrect, it ONLY SHOWS that both Fred and George lack the exact same tool to determine the answer.

If that STILL doesn't help, let me more simply address your post, maybe that will make it easier.

"The conundrum" is not resolved by adding another conundrum on top of it. I can accept "we don't know where the universe came from" without having to accept "god created the universe."

----response: But if you accept you don't know where the universe came from, why do you speak with personal authority that theists are wrong? The answer is you really cannot. I do not claim to know for sure there is a supreme entity, only that I choose to believe there is, such is faith. However, it is hypocritical for you to claim since I cannot know the answer to the conundrum of first cause, my belief is incorrect, when you yourself do not know the answer, either.

Atheists and theists share the conundrum of "we don't know where the universe came from", yes.

Theists create another conundrum by postulating a god as the answer. (But the problem is, the original conundrum still remains. Postulating a god does nothing to explain how the god created the universe.)

But if you accept you don't know where the universe came from, why do you speak with personal authority that theists are wrong?

Because there is no evidence they are right. Pretty simple. Just because we might not know the correct answer, doesn't mean we can't eliminate a wrong one. Ever read Sherlock Holmes?

Since you missed my point earlier, let me try and restate it. You're inventing an explanation that doesn't explain anything, and worse, requires an explanation of its own. And even worse, has its own logical inconsistencies and problems that make its nature impossible. (But you wave your hands and simply declare that your god is so complex, those inconsistencies aren't really there.)

I understand your point, but instead of trying to understand mine, you just keep restating your own point, which I already comprehend.

No need to continue, I suppose.

You're inventing an explanation that doesn't explain anything, and worse, requires an explanation of its own. And even worse, has its own logical inconsistencies and problems that make its nature impossible. (But you wave your hands and simply declare that your god is so complex, those inconsistencies aren't really there.)

VERY well stated, and what I meant to say earlier.

First you say:

God is not like us and may be so unlike us as to not be in a form we can completely understand or perceive.

OK, you've established that we really can never understand anything about your god. But then you go on to tell us all sorts of things about him:

...we have the capacity to love, to create, to cherish, to treasure, we are like God and operate in his image.
God is will...
The greatest thing that God is love, and sacrifice.
God is infinitely more complex than we realize.
God is an architect, an artist.
...God is NOT about requiring perfection

So, which is it? Is your god incomprehensible, or can we understand things about him?

Your theory also pretty much kills any sort of debate. You declare your god to be "infinitely complex" and therefore seemingly contradictory concepts aren't contradictory at all. Anyone who points out inconsistencies in your reasoning can just be dismissed as not understanding just how complex your god is.

Your theory of creation, then, is really not much different than a painting or sculpture or other work of art. Just as some art is directly representative of reality, other art is not and bears no relevance to reality whatsoever, other than the reality of the material of which it's made. All forms of art can have aesthetic value and be appreciated, of course, but have no intrinsic meaning apart from their relationship to the human experience. I.e., a painting of a unicorn does not make unicorns exist.

It also makes that idea much more contagious.

I just searched for "Unicorn" in google images and came up with 284,000 results.

Clearly, in some sense, unicorns do exist.

I imagine at some point, when our ability to manipulate genes has advanced, somebody will make a "real" unicorn.

Both are solely immaterial concepts inside a human mind. If all humans ceased to exist, so would unicorns in the sense that you say they do. I feel the same way about gods.

... of a unicorn during an archaeological dig on earth, and then the unicorn myth would start all over again.

A mind is simply a tool that prunes an ever-branching tree of reality. Certain sorts of atheism are simply godless brands of fundamentalism.

You have to remain open to surprises and mysteries or the creative spark within you dies.

To me, the oddest thing about this thread is that Lerkfish's "sliver of God" sounds as if he's been talking to my mom...

I'd be :rofl: if Lerkfish turned out to be my dad.

This insinuation - CONSTANTLY resurfacing by such well-intentioned (yeah, right) believers - that somehow atheists can't be creative, or enjoy non-scientific things in life, or any other bullshit associated with the meme that atheists are boring overly-rational robotic "fundamentalist" types.

If I posted the equivalent, that believers are mindless non-rational folks who don't care about making things right here and now, I'd be bashed, and rightly so.

But somehow bigotry against atheists is A-OK.

I'm a lit teacher, and, if I have to say so myself, a pretty damn good one. Just because I don't believe in god, doesn't mean I can't be creative. Of course, my poetry fails to get published, so THAT may say something, but someday....someday.

Let's see if I can dig myself into this hole a little deeper...

I think a few months back I described religion as an art. Even if one doesn't believe in God, one can accept almost any religion as an art so long as its practitioners are not reaching out and oppressing non-believers.

Many non-Catholics visit Catholic churches just to see the art. Inside the churches most of these visitors are quiet and respectful; to a certain extent they become part of the practice of the art. (Of course there are often disrespectful yahoos too who are only visiting because some tour book said they had to, and they laugh and joke around, take rude flash pictures, and generally make fun of things.) But so long as visitors are not being disrespectful, and even though visitors may not believe in God (especially a Catholic God!) for a moment they become part of that Catholic spiritual journey.

In a similar way I might be visiting an art museum with an atheist who finds the works of Edgar Degas to be spiritually uplifting. I'm not a big fan of Degas, but I'm not going to say anything derogatory about the artwork, especially not while my friend is on a pilgrimage to see his work. In fact, as I'm standing there while she silently takes it in, I myself might see something that makes me appreciate Degas a little more than I did.

Many people feel severely oppressed by the religions they grow up with and they eventually abandon them. A friend of mine grew up in a very fundamentalist household where her father's word was law, and his law was God's law as interpreted by his church. Unfortunately for my friend, she found herself sexually attracted to women. That conflict alone caused her to reject her parent's religion entirely, but not before she'd hurt herself and a lot of other people along the way. But other than being a lesbian with children married to another woman, most of her political attitudes are still fairly conservative.

Likewise, I've met several paleontologists who were raised as creationists but first engaged in the study of paleontology as a joyful act of rebellion against their parent's religion.

"Take this, Mom and Dad! Now you'll have to tell all your friends I'm an Evolutionary Biologist!"

"Um, our son? Oh he's an ev..., ahem, Biologist... something about gene frequencies, it's all so complicated these days...

The saddest souls I know are those who have abandoned their fundamentalist faith and stopped traveling down any roads of further spiritual development. They remain homophobic, xenophobic, anti-intellectual bigots who no longer believe in their god. Some may not confess this and still go to church, which would make them closet atheists, I suppose.

I once had a truly depressing exchange with a fundamentalist whose daughter had died of anorexia. Clearly this fellow had lost his faith, but he hadn't lost any of the trappings of it. He was still extremely homophobic, and had simply replaced biblical prohibitions of homosexuality with claims that it was "against nature." He was still an anti-evolutionist. And he hated Catholics. In his eyes I was pretty much damned on all three counts, I just wasn't God Damned.

I very much understand atheist's reluctance to discuss human spirituality because I've seen how some religious people will immediately jump on that and claim, "Aha! There's God in you, you just don't know it!" which is a perfectly valid reason to get pissed off.

My own spirituality is linked to my religion, but I don't see religion as a necessity of human spiritual expression. I can also see how this link between my spirituality and my religion could sometimes be a handicap, especially when I'm communicating with people who don't share it.

I can easily accept that. Fits right in with the unicorn/ideas analogy. Art is real, but what it represents may or may not be real. It might not even represent anything. Hmm, need to explore that analogy a little bit more. Tricky, I'm sure, since religion has inspired art, but then again, early art has inspired later art. (Andy Warhol, anyone?)

Anyway, I need to find out what social circles I can find these "conservative fundie atheists" in, because I still have yet to meet one. I belong to atheist organizations, know many atheists online, but haven't met anyone like the people you describe. Sure, I've met a few "pouty" atheists, the types who declare themselves an atheist because they're trying to show their god how mad they are, but they still really do believe.

I gotta wonder, though, how someone could be "anti-evolutionist" for non-religious reasons.

You expect someone who was a rabid fundamentalist to suddenly start making sense simply because they've stopped believing in God?

I think you've nailed much of the endless debate in this forum with that. Even if we could remove God from the playing field, it would not make formerly religious people suddenly start making sense.

One of my own experiences was with racism. Worse than most religion, racism doesn't make any sense at all.

My grandfather was an engineer. He was an extremely rational person. Intellectually he wasn't a racist. He had friends and colleagues who were not white whom he genuinely respected.

Then I introduced him to my future wife. He was very cordial and polite, but he wasn't his usual flirty self as he had been with my brothers' girlfriends and wives. I was thinking "huh?"

Later I was driving my grandfather around on his usual errands (he was elderly and couldn't drive any more) and he called my wife a "cute Mexican."

That was a horrible, horrible "aha!" revelation moment for me, one of the worst I've ever had.

So that's the way it is.... People in our family worked with Mexicans, we respected Mexicans, but we didn't marry Mexicans. Um, yeah, okay.

Fortunately the three of us made some kind of peace before my grandfather passed away. After my wife and I were married (he did not attend our wedding, but he may have been ill, I'll never know) my grandfather began to express genuine affection for my wife. Some barrier within my grandfather had been broken.

If we can break those sorts of barriers here in this forum then we are doing good.

But I would expect them to have SOME kind of reason, rational or not, to oppose evolution. I just can't imagine what it would be.

Religious thinking usually encourages non-critical thinking in other areas of life. THAT'S the problem, and we see it A LOT. It's why the religious nuts vote for Republicans. It's not a matter of simply eliminating "god," it's about putting critical thinking skills at the forefront of every educational program, and never walling off an area and saying "reason cannot go here."

But these walls we build where "reason cannot go here" are everywhere, within and without religion, although many religions are especially dense with them.