Atheist!

[TheeGoatPig]

How do you answer this thread then? Only yes people can answer, is that it? You are of a high opinion of your lack of brain activity, is that not correct? Sorry, you are one of the reasons we are here. Thank you for another show and tell reaction.

What?

I hope that you know that your reply makes no sense at all. And so neither will mine.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c65/theegoatpig/GoddamnBatman.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c65/theegoatpig/HL1Xen.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c65/theegoatpig/kermit.png
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c65/theegoatpig/minesweeper.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c65/theegoatpig/doom3disk.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c65/theegoatpig/Belly.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c65/theegoatpig/diving.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c65/theegoatpig/warlock.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c65/theegoatpig/wherearethewalls.jpg

 

[DeeZire]

...We have the entire Bible on PC and we were able to cite most of the Bible if need be to debunk your opinion of how God thinks about fools.

wmrs2 - since you bailed on my question about slavery in the Bible, I referenced wiki:

The issue of Christianity and slavery is one that has seen intense conflict. While Christian abolitionists were a principal force in the abolition of slavery, the Bible sanctioned the use of regulated slavery in the Old Testament, while the New Testament does not explicitly condemn slavery in all its forms. Numerous passages in the Bible have historically been used by pro slavery advocates to support the practice as valid for their societies.

Slavery in different forms existed within Christianity for over 18 centuries. In the early years of Christianity slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire, and well into the Middle Ages and beyond. Centuries later, as the abolition movement took shape across the globe, groups who advocated slavery's abolition worked to harness Christian teachings in support of their positions, using both the 'spirit of Christianity' and textual argumentation.[1] On the other hand, those opposed to abolition and equal rights were able to quote numerous Biblical passages that permitted and regulated the practice of slavery.[2]

To refresh you memory, I was asking you to produce the Bible passages they used to use to justify slavery and give us your interpretation of those quotes. Since you have the entire Bible on PC, and you have extensive knowledge of the document, this would give you an opportunity to back up your "self evident truths" with Scripture, or show us how the Scripture was mis-interpreted by earlier generations.

This is relevant to the thread because issue like slavery make it impossible for Atheists to accept the Bible as a rational basis for an ideology. If you prefer not to produce the quotes and defend your position, you must accept the fact that atheism is just as valid as Christianity - maybe even more so - since atheism is based on rational thought while Christianity is based on the acceptance of fantasy as reality.

 

[sr71plt]

wmrs2 - since you bailed on my question about slavery in the Bible, I referenced wiki:



To refresh you memory, I was asking you to produce the Bible passages they used to use to justify slavery and give us your interpretation of those quotes. Since you have the entire Bible on PC, and you have extensive knowledge of the document, this would give you an opportunity to back up your "self evident truths" with Scripture, or show us how the Scripture was mis-interpreted by earlier generations.

This is relevant to the thread because issue like slavery make it impossible for Atheists to accept the Bible as a rational basis for an ideology. If you prefer not to produce the quotes and defend your position, you must accept the fact that atheism is just as valid as Christianity - maybe even more so - since atheism is based on rational thought while Christianity is based on the acceptance of fantasy as reality.

Hasn't responded to someone's question on whether he/she/it hangs on every word of the Bible either--or, like most folks, is selective in citation based on the point he/it/she wants to cram down everyone's throat. To do so, of course, would bring it/she/him up against my unanswered questions about rectifying the multiple double versions of stories found in the Bible (e.g. how did Judas die; how did Eve come about in the creation story).

 

[DeeZire]

Wmrs2 - To simplify:

Atheist: It is a self-evident truth that slavery is wrong

Christian: It is a self-evident truth that slavery is okay as long as you treat your slaves with respect.

Please explain.

 

[sr71plt]

Wmrs2 - To simplify:

Atheist: It is a self-evident truth that slavery is wrong

Christian: It is a self-evident truth that slavery is okay as long as you treat your slaves with respect.

Please explain.

To be fair you can't simply extrapolate from history into current-day value judgments. Slavery in biblical times was much more complex than slavery of the 18th- and 19th-century American circumstance. (e.g., there are laws set forth in the Bible about setting slaves free in the seventh year of service.) Most forms of slavery then (and in the Greek and Roman periods) were more like the current caste system in India (although that too is loosening) or the indentured servant/apprentice system of the 18th century. (The Jews escaping "slavery" from Egypt had their own homes--indeed, took in boarders--and working hours and free time and such--there's no evidence, for instance that they were part of the work force that built the pyramids or other big curvie-style government work projects.) The biblical points of Paul telling the slave to go back to his master dealt with fulfilling contracts and subjecting yourself totally to God's will (it was a substitution story--the slave's master for God).

You have to look in back of the stories for what they were meant to illustrate/convey. Athiests shouldn't take everything in the Bible literally any more than fundamentalists "Christians" should. Both will just be tied up in knots by that--and end up just spitting meaninglessly at each other, like, well, like here on this thread.

 

[wmrs2]

Hasn't responded to someone's question on whether he/she/it hangs on every word of the Bible either--or, like most folks, is selective in citation based on the point he/it/she wants to cram down everyone's throat. To do so, of course, would bring it/she/him up against my unanswered questions about rectifying the multiple double versions of stories found in the Bible (e.g. how did Judas die; how did Eve come about in the creation story).

With all due respect, he/she/it does not consider slavery an issue that can be defended by Christians. Any citation you find in the Bible that you think supports the institution of slavery, in my opinion is miss read. As a matter of policy and faith, I do not defend the content of the Bible. I view the Bible as a book that verifies my faith but I arrive at faith through natural theology.

 

[DeeZire]

Athiests shouldn't take everything in the Bible literally any more than fundamentalists "Christians" should. Both will just be tied up in knots by that--and end up just spitting meaninglessly at each other, like, well, like here on this thread.

That is exactly my point. The Bible isn't a rule book, although many use it that way. One could see it as an ancient self-help book, but to call it the absolute truth makes no sense, since the truth keeps changing, depending on who's interpretation one is exposed to.

 

[wmrs2]

To be fair you can't simply extrapolate from history into current-day value judgments. Slavery in biblical times was much more complex than slavery of the 18th- and 19th-century American circumstance. (e.g., there are laws set forth in the Bible about setting slaves free in the seventh year of service.) Most forms of slavery then (and in the Greek and Roman periods) were more like the current caste system in India (although that too is loosening) or the indentured servant/apprentice system of the 18th century. (The Jews escaping "slavery" from Egypt had their own homes--indeed, took in boarders--and working hours and free time and such--there's no evidence, for instance that they were part of the work force that built the pyramids or other big curvie-style government work projects.) The biblical points of Paul telling the slave to go back to his master dealt with fulfilling contracts and subjecting yourself totally to God's will (it was a substitution story--the slave's master for God).

You have to look in back of the stories for what they were meant to illustrate/convey. Athiests shouldn't take everything in the Bible literally any more than fundamentalists "Christians" should. Both will just be tied up in knots by that--and end up just spitting meaninglessly at each other, like, well, like here on this thread.

Good point.

 

[DeeZire]

As a matter of policy and faith, I do not defend the content of the Bible. I view the Bible as a book that verifies my faith but I arrive at faith through natural theology.

Weren't you just saying that God hates people, and that it's in the Bible? Get your story straight, wmrs2. Or is this a different wmrs2 than the one who said God hates people? Perhaps you should identify each wmrs with a different number, as in wmrs2, wmrs3, wmrs4, etc. The "We" you keep talking about keeps changing.

On "natural theology", if that theology includes Creationism, it is not natural at all. It goes against the laws of nature, but if it floats your boat, (or ark) I suppose it's valid, at least in your fantasy world.

 

[past_perfect]

On "natural theology", if that theology includes Creationism, it is not natural at all. It goes against the laws of nature, but if it floats your boat, (or ark) I suppose it's valid, at least in your fantasy world.

The wikipedia entry explains this quite ok:

Natural theology

 

[al_Ussa]

Why is "atheist" a pejorative term to most Americans?

I would say it has to do with the rise of the 'religious right' in this country, but that it is helped by many things, not the least of which includes some rather pushy atheists to boot. Not saying all atheists are like that; most I know personally are not, in fact, but I have seen quite a few atheists online who attack anything and everything religious.

Now me, I'm not much for anyone pushing their religious beliefs on me (or lack thereof), whatever they may be. And, I'm for freedom of religion. If you want to pray, if you want to practice your rituals, if you want to build your temple or contribute to a charity, go for it. I object to the more extremes of atheism just as much as I object to the notion of mandatory prayer.

With that out of the way, lets cover the issue of the religious right... first of all, its a very recent and very American movement. Essentially it grows out of the late 19th/early 20th century, when alot of fringe groups started forming in the rural US. Its very much a reactionary form of religion that is opposed to cities, money, education... anything successful. The mentality is much the same as you see with Islamic fundamentalism.

The religious right is small but very well organized. Essentially, they look around and say 'the modern world is unfair,' so they group into small communities and try to live an idealized version of the past which never existed. They NEED to believe that they alone are special and everyone else is going to hell (and very soon). Without that belief, they would loose faith. To this end, they oppose almost anything they see as pop culture or mainstream.

Seriously, surf the web and read some of their rants. They must be very unhappy individuals. But they need to THINK they are right. And to attract new converts. So they attack atheists. They believe atheists are just as organized as they, and are actively trying to push the same agendas in society. Evangelicals have lots of money and political influence you see, and ARE trying to push for creationism, war and other things.

To them, its unthinkable that other religions (or lack there of) don't have the same goals at shaping society. So they imagine some sort of conspiracy, where all scienstis are plotting to secretly discredit them. As if two scientists would ever agree on ANYTHING! *rolls eyes*

Just my two cents.

 

[wmrs2]

Wmrs2. I would be interested to know with more precision what your own religious beliefs are and particularly what is the position of the bible in your beliefs. Do you for example interpret the bible literally, allegorically, selectively or in some other way.

Thus far in reading this thread I only have a poorly defined idea of your opinions/beliefs drawn from your responses to other posters. Thank you.

Thank you for asking these questions. I believe in one God. God is the most rational force in the universe and he is a God to all men. To accept God or to reject God becomes the premise for all reasoning. My belief in God comes to me by natural theology, although revealed theology (Bible) is important and offers much wisdom to man.

After accepting God's existence as self-evident truth, it is possible to base all life decisions on God's existence. To know about God, one must first determine what the universe is really like. Then, ask this question:what would a God be like that would create such a universe. This how the deduction process begins.

The deduction process is the beginning of any epistemology (theory of knowledge) which includes science, math, logic, or ethics. It is my belief that a correct deduction process will lead the mind to a perfect model of behavior, which I believe is Jesus Christ. Man is free to make his own deductions on how life should be lived. This explains why there are many different religions but still only one God. A religion is a deduction.

The position of the Bible in my beliefs is as follows. The Bible is a collection of the best representation of good wisdom and the evil wisdom that man has collected and deduced. It is the word of God because it seeks to illuminate the Truth. Believers do not have to prove the Bible to be true in order to believe the Truth. The Bible's role is to confirm the faith of the believer, which is based on correct deductions. Christians do not need to defend the Bible because its truth is found in natural theology by the observation of nature. If the Bible is discredited, Truth still remains knowable to men of good will.

There is much more to be said about my personal beliefs, which I will be happy to share with you if you have further curiosity about my beliefs.

 

[wmrs2]

Oh, you mean like Matthew 5:22?



I'd recommend you look at your posts and heed that patent advice in future.

Again, you are judging me (and saying in the same passage that you are not judging me ) and telling me I should leave judgement to God? I'd say it would be wise for you to do the same, since you seem so keen to point out the consequences.

Where did I alter the Bible? Where have I speculated whether or not God hates sin? I don't have any idea of how God should be like, but I have a rather clear idea of how Jesus was probably like, according to what we have written about him in the N.T. - please quote any passage where he has shown hate, or claimed that God hates. I think that is your interpretation, unless you can disprove that in the way I asked and would corroborate my theory that your view of God is limited to your limited world-view of good and evil, love and hate. So far I have only heard you spouting hate and disdain, pass judgement about people you don't even know and wallow in a sense of self-righteousness and an authority you clearly do not possess. If what you deliver here is your interpretation of:

you are into tough love or what? So was Jesus too liberal for you also?

Thank you for allowing me to explain my position on the scripture verses you cite and other religious matters. Please overlook the tendency of mine to respond like a carnal person that has been attacked and threatened. I accept that my attitude has not been conducive to telling the truth in a believable manner. I will try to improve beginning now.

I have already cited passages where God hates and their are literally thousands of more passages that illustrates God's displeasure with unbelievers, if one considers all the synonyms in the Bible of the word hate. You have probably read these citations on this thread by now, I only refer to the fact these citations are here and do exist.

I think that is your interpretation, unless you can disprove that in the way I asked and would corroborate my theory that your view of God is limited to your limited world-view of good and evil, love and hate.

I agree that my view of God is limited to my world view of good and evil. It is my view that only God knows what the thoughts and intents of a person's feelings are. That is why we must allow God to judge but passing the word and judgment of God along to people is not judging. Perhaps I failed to point this out.

Also, when I referred to a "fool" it was my intention to point out that that was the opinion God had of people that did not believe in him. That is what the Bible teaches. We are not allowed to judge who is a fool and who is not, but God still know and God had decided to damn that person. Whatever being damned is, is also up to God. Again, I was only attempting to pass the word along.

I am sorry that I have failed you and will be trying to do better. Thank you for your criticism. I will try to improve my behavior based on your thoughts.

 

[wmrs2]

Oh, you mean like Matthew 5:22?


I'd recommend you look at your posts and heed that patent advice in future.

Again, you are judging me (and saying in the same passage that you are not judging me ) and telling me I should leave judgement to God? I'd say it would be wise for you to do the same, since you seem so keen to point out the consequences.

Where did I alter the Bible? Where have I speculated whether or not God hates sin? I don't have any idea of how God should be like, but I have a rather clear idea of how Jesus was probably like, according to what we have written about him in the N.T. - please quote any passage where he has shown hate, or claimed that God hates. I think that is your interpretation, unless you can disprove that in the way I asked and would corroborate my theory that your view of God is limited to your limited world-view of good and evil, love and hate. So far I have only heard you spouting hate and disdain, pass judgement about people you don't even know and wallow in a sense of self-righteousness and an authority you clearly do not possess. If what you deliver here is your interpretation of:

you are into tough love or what? So was Jesus too liberal for you also?

Thank you for allowing me to explain my position on the scripture verses you cite and other religious matters. I do regret that I could not respond to you in a more receptive manner. I will try to improve beginning now.

I have already cited passages where God hates and their are literally thousands of more passages that illustrates God's displeasure with unbelievers, if one considers all the synonyms in the Bible of the word hate. You have probably read these citations on this thread by now, I only refer to the fact these citations are here and do exist.

I think that is your interpretation, unless you can disprove that in the way I asked and would corroborate my theory that your view of God is limited to your limited world-view of good and evil, love and hate.

I agree that my view of God is limited to my world view of good and evil. It is my view that only God knows what the thoughts and intents of a person's feelings are. That is why we must allow God to judge but passing the word and judgment of God along to people is not judging.

Also, when I referred to a "fool" it was my intention to point out that that was the opinion God had of people that did not believe in him. That is what the Bible teaches. We are not allowed to judge who is a fool and who is not, but God still knows and God has decided to damn that person. Whatever being damned is, this is also up to God. Again, I was only attempting to pass the word along.


I am sorry that I have failed you and will be trying to do better. Thank you for your criticism. I will try to improve my behavior based on your thoughts.

 

[wmrs2]

Oh, you mean like Matthew 5:22?


I'd recommend you look at your posts and heed that patent advice in future.

Again, you are judging me (and saying in the same passage that you are not judging me ) and telling me I should leave judgement to God? I'd say it would be wise for you to do the same, since you seem so keen to point out the consequences.

Where did I alter the Bible? Where have I speculated whether or not God hates sin? I don't have any idea of how God should be like, but I have a rather clear idea of how Jesus was probably like, according to what we have written about him in the N.T. - please quote any passage where he has shown hate, or claimed that God hates. I think that is your interpretation, unless you can disprove that in the way I asked and would corroborate my theory that your view of God is limited to your limited world-view of good and evil, love and hate. So far I have only heard you spouting hate and disdain, pass judgement about people you don't even know and wallow in a sense of self-righteousness and an authority you clearly do not possess. If what you deliver here is your interpretation of:

you are into tough love or what? So was Jesus too liberal for you also?

Thank you for allowing me to explain my position on the scripture verses you cite and other religious matters. I do regret that I could not respond to you in a more receptive manner. I will try to improve beginning now.

I have already cited passages where God hates and there are literally thousands of more passages that illustrates God's displeasure with unbelievers, especially if one considers all the synonyms in the Bible of the word hate. You have probably read these citations on this thread by now, I only refer to the fact these citations are here and do exist.

I think that is your interpretation, unless you can disprove that in the way I asked and would corroborate my theory that your view of God is limited to your limited world-view of good and evil, love and hate.

I agree that my view of God is limited to my world view of good and evil. It is my view that only God knows what the thoughts and intents of a person's feelings are. That is why we must allow God to judge but passing the word and judgment of God along to people is not judging.

Also, when I referred to a "fool" it was my intention to point out that that was the opinion God had of people that did not believe in him. That is what the Bible teaches along with God's great love and forgiveness to all that believe. We are not allowed to judge who is a fool and who is not, but God still knows and God has decided to damn that person. Whatever being damned is, this is also up to God. Again, I was only attempting to pass the word along. I do admit that I wanted to hit my tormentors very hard. This does not make my attitude correct but it does explain the situation.

I am not into tough love but I am responding harshly to those who support the people that harassed and ridiculed me on the thread where I named these people as RABD. Again that does not make my response right but it does explain my present attitude. If you are not among that group that I have branded as RABD, then I do apologize for my poor poor intellectual retort to you. If you are among that group, I feel that I owe you nothing other than to promise that I will treat you with the same respect you show to me.

Thank you for your criticism. I will try to improve my behavior based on your thoughts.

 

[wmrs2]

Wormie:

By using "red" as an insult, you are showing yourself not only as ignorant, but as a racist, as well. I shouldn't be surprised; the two often go hand in hand.

"Red" isn't an insult. Red is proud, defiant, and above all else, a survivor. Please find some other word to use in your insults rather than a racial slur towards me and mine.

I recognize only one race, that is the human race. I apologize to you if you received my comments as a racial slur. My intention was to refer to a color of red, an adjective.

 

[wmrs2]

That is exactly my point. The Bible isn't a rule book, although many use it that way. One could see it as an ancient self-help book, but to call it the absolute truth makes no sense, since the truth keeps changing, depending on who's interpretation one is exposed to.

I agree with most of what you say about the Bible but I disagree with the statement that truth keeps changing. It is the fact that truth is absolute and unchanging that allows believers to discover God through natural theology.

 

[wmrs2]

Weren't you just saying that God hates people, and that it's in the Bible? Get your story straight, wmrs2. Or is this a different wmrs2 than the one who said God hates people? Perhaps you should identify each wmrs with a different number, as in wmrs2, wmrs3, wmrs4, etc. The "We" you keep talking about keeps changing.

On "natural theology", if that theology includes Creationism, it is not natural at all. It goes against the laws of nature, but if it floats your boat, (or ark) I suppose it's valid, at least in your fantasy world.

No, we did not say that God hates people. We did say the Bible teaches that God hates unbelievers. This explanation has been given by me in a recent post if you would care to read it.

Creationism is not an issue with me and I do not defend it or reject it. Creation is what it is.

 

[wmrs2]

I would say it has to do with the rise of the 'religious right' in this country, but that it is helped by many things, not the least of which includes some rather pushy atheists to boot. Not saying all atheists are like that; most I know personally are not, in fact, but I have seen quite a few atheists online who attack anything and everything religious.

Now me, I'm not much for anyone pushing their religious beliefs on me (or lack thereof), whatever they may be. And, I'm for freedom of religion. If you want to pray, if you want to practice your rituals, if you want to build your temple or contribute to a charity, go for it. I object to the more extremes of atheism just as much as I object to the notion of mandatory prayer.

With that out of the way, lets cover the issue of the religious right... first of all, its a very recent and very American movement. Essentially it grows out of the late 19th/early 20th century, when alot of fringe groups started forming in the rural US. Its very much a reactionary form of religion that is opposed to cities, money, education... anything successful. The mentality is much the same as you see with Islamic fundamentalism.

The religious right is small but very well organized. Essentially, they look around and say 'the modern world is unfair,' so they group into small communities and try to live an idealized version of the past which never existed. They NEED to believe that they alone are special and everyone else is going to hell (and very soon). Without that belief, they would loose faith. To this end, they oppose almost anything they see as pop culture or mainstream.

Seriously, surf the web and read some of their rants. They must be very unhappy individuals. But they need to THINK they are right. And to attract new converts. So they attack atheists. They believe atheists are just as organized as they, and are actively trying to push the same agendas in society. Evangelicals have lots of money and political influence you see, and ARE trying to push for creationism, war and other things.

To them, its unthinkable that other religions (or lack there of) don't have the same goals at shaping society. So they imagine some sort of conspiracy, where all scienstis are plotting to secretly discredit them. As if two scientists would ever agree on ANYTHING! *rolls eyes*

Just my two cents.

Some are, yes. All are, no.

 

[amicus]

Thanks to another Troll: TheeGoatPig There is no R in my name

You messed up the width of the page for everyone with your stupid images, do everyone a favor and delete the damned thing?

gee thanks...


amicus...

 

[cantdog]

Why is "atheist" a pejorative term to most Americans?

They're asses.

 

[DeeZire]

Originally Posted by Sub Joe
Why is "atheist" a pejorative term to most Americans?

They're asses.

Americans are asses? Or atheists are asses?

 

[JackLuis]

I think that the Creationists have a point. We assume the Creator is like us, and yet the manner of his reaching his objectives is puzzling.

Consider if you will Astronomy. Men have for thousands of years studied the universe only recently have we been able to see the majesty of the Universe. Space based Optics and large radio arrays have revolutionized the study of the stars.

Now I'd be the last to say that I know what God's plan is for anything. If a Creator precipitated the Big Bang and set in motion untold brazillions of possibilities for matter and energy to interact on scales where mankind is insignificant, then I wonder if it was all so that some of the places in the universe could contain liquid water and allow Man to develope. Makes me feel sort of humble, like I could be a byproduct of his larger plans.

Worms2 has based her conversation on the bible, NT in particular. Now it is two thousand years old and people didn't understand Astronomy or the earth sciences much, Else Lebanon might still have Ceders and the Holy Land might be worth having.

I think that the Creationists are missing the bet to use Science to illuminate the wonder of God's handiwork. The question I ask is, Are we a byproduct of this universe or an end product?

 

[slyc_willie]

What do you think of, when you say "Higher order?"

I believe in immortal souls. I believe in a connective energy that is shared with all living things. I believe in a God that is a less powerful but more aware aspect of this energy. This is the God that various people throughout time have been able to converse with, on any number of levels.

So, when I say "higher order," I mean a level of existence above/removed/parallel with our own, but to which we are all connected.

You mentioned Nirvana; I have always had a particular fascination and sympathy for that belief, as it is close to my own. In the faith in which Nirvana exists (Buddhism), the soul is reincarnated over and over until a state of true abandonment of ignorance is achieved. At which point the individual is fully released and moves on elsewhere. As you said, Nirvana is not a place, but a state of being.

Where I disagree with that idea is that I believe there is a final destination, a "heaven." My reasoning for that is when you have enough individuals attaining the same state of being, you have a collection (or congregation, if you will), and it is only natural that any collection of beings, in any state, will have a shared existence.

Yeah, I know, that was probably a little chaotic. No one's asked me to explain my beliefs before.

 

[amicus]

JL:

"...Now I'd be the last to say that I know what God's plan is for anything. If a Creator precipitated the Big Bang and set in motion untold brazillions of possibilities for matter and energy to interact on scales where mankind is insignificant, then I wonder if it was all so that some of the places in the universe could contain liquid water and allow Man to develope. Makes me feel sort of humble, like I could be a byproduct of his larger plans..."

~~~

You stumbled, quite inadvertently, on something that interests me...to a point, that is.

I, too, have followed the discoveries, mysteries and theories of astronomy and the universe, most likely longer than you have, and the information and knowledge is almost beyond comprehension, in view of time and space, matter and energy and the origins of everything in the universe.

I have read before, hundreds of times, the humility, one is expected to feel standing before a vast ocean, in orbit around earth, on the way to the Moon and in your circumstance of recognizing the vastness of space and time.

I have often wondered why so many look outside themselves, in your case, before the Big Bang, to find a daddy to lean on and comfort them.

Must be a troubled childhood...my best guess.

I would suggest another aspect, another perspective, might be more productive and even beneficial as concerns a state of mind.

Stand before that ocean and smile; knowing you can sail across it.

Orbit the earth and smile; knowing science and man's mind put you there.

Marvel at space, where new stars are born and old ones die and black matter exists and black holes come and go and cosmic bursts of energy, travelling longer than earth has existed impact upon your instruments.

Look at the universe and smile; knowing that we are part of it and have our own duration of sentience, something no one, to our knowledge, has ever possessed before.

Then look within and smile again; the only supernal inspiration you need is in your own mind, your own life, and what you can make of the span of time nature alots us.

Once you are at peace with your inner self...then set forth to construct a philosophy suitable for a sentient intelligent being and do include a consistent plan of action to express that unique, one of a kind, perception of the Universe that only you possess.

That is why it is the individual that is supreme; that is why each and every life, from the moment of conception is valuable, unto itself.

Thanks for the inspiration.

Amicus