How can I know that there is a God?

[McCulloch]

I've been debating many issues here for some time now, but the single most important one, in my opinion is this. There are those who claim that they know that God exists. How does one come to that knowledge? Do they really know that God exists or do they simply suppose or assume that God exists?

If your answer is that I cannot know, then you are as much of an agnostic as I am. If you answer is that some holy book says so, then you have only pushed the question onto that book. I also have what I think is the second most important question.

How can I know that there is a God?

[McCulloch]

How can I know that there is a God?

Who else could have created the universe and sustain it the way it is? No created thing could do such a thing because whoever or whatever created the created had to be more powerful or possess more to do so. Therefore all that is created is limited in it's capabilities and all that it possess's and relies on something other than what is created to sustain the creation. Ask your self how did everything come to be? everything has a purpose for it's existence what is man's purpose?

What makes you believe that the universe had to be created by some great intelligent power? Is there any evidence that the universe requires someone to sustain it?

Why is it that you accept without proof that everything has a purpose?

[Goat]

The Bible is a stumbling block for unbelievers. Isn't it amazing that 2 people can read the same verse & see two totally different meanings. The believer has his eyes opened. it's one of the first gifts given by God, understanding of his words . Why would he waste his time on unbelievers. You follow your father the Devil & it makes no difference how much proof you are given because you are blind.

So someone who disagrees with you is of Satan? How do you know that it isn't you that is deceived by Satan? Isn't Satan the father of Lies. Wouldn't the best lie be to have someone think they are following God, yet be following Satan? How do you know it isn't you?

Accusations of other people being blind aren't really debate. Perhaps you should give some reasons to accept your viewpoint, instead of just preaching.

[muhammad rasullah]

How can I know that there is a God?

Who else could have created the universe and sustain it the way it is? No created thing could do such a thing because whoever or whatever created the created had to be more powerful or possess more to do so. Therefore all that is created is limited in it's capabilities and all that it possess's and relies on something other than what is created to sustain the creation. Ask your self how did everything come to be? everything has a purpose for it's existence what is man's purpose?

What makes you believe that the universe had to be created by some great intelligent power? Is there any evidence that the universe requires someone to sustain it?

Why is it that you accept without proof that everything has a purpose?

How else could it have come to be? if there is nothing else that is proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't created that's what I'll beleive because it's the most logical and reasonable explanation for me to comprehend. How did the sun and the rest of the solar system position themselves in the solar system where they are? why and how is that the earth is positioned at exactly the point where human existence is possible?

Why is it that you accept without proof that everything has a purpose?

[/quote]
Well if you examine the human being and everything which he has created it all serves a purpose and there is a reason why he did it. so why wouldn't the rest of creation or things in the universe have a purpose especially man?

[McCulloch]

What makes you believe that the universe had to be created by some great intelligent power? Is there any evidence that the universe requires someone to sustain it?

Why is it that you accept without proof that everything has a purpose?

How else could it have come to be?

You believe that there is a God because you cannot understand the alternative?

if there is nothing else that is proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't created that's what I'll believe because it's the most logical and reasonable explanation for me to comprehend. How did the sun and the rest of the solar system position themselves in the solar system where they are? why and how is that the earth is positioned at exactly the point where human existence is possible?

Well actually, there are many many suns and planets that are not positioned in a way suitable for life. The fact that live evolved on the one that is favourably situated does not prove Divine intervention. It would be like the puddle being in awe that the hole was built just the right shape for it.

Why is it that you accept without proof that everything has a purpose?

Well if you examine the human being and everything which he has created it all serves a purpose and there is a reason why he did it. so why wouldn't the rest of creation or things in the universe have a purpose especially man?

Humans create things with design and purpose therefore everything that appears to have design and purpose must be the product of deliberate purpose. This is rather faulty logic.

[Aardvark]

Moral code IMHO is evolving - changes over time. It don't believe it is an absolute as the characteristic of 'unchanging' which you use would suggest.

...
Hmm If good and bad are subjective then we're either not progressing, or else we simply have no way of knowing if we are. Probably how we're meant to understand Adam and Eve before the knowledge of good and evil got into them.

If I use mindfulness of the happiness and well being of all as being the benchmark we are clearly 'progressing' when comparing what was generally acceptable within society a few hundred years ago as to the present day. Attitudes to slavery come to mind..

...
Slavery is a power relationship. Much like the power relationship gods once held in early societies.

The desire to be free is another species wide drive. But how is it that we know it is wrong to be slaves unless we have some innate moral sense that it is wrong? Can we see in nature anything more than Machiavellian power struggle?
Natural selection is accepted as a suitable law for non sentients, but when confronted by the application to justify slavery we are outraged. When we see the repercussions in the form of eugenics or ethnic cleansing we no longer think it a law we should live by, we look for some law that is not part of our mere animal nature.

You mean there is no gossip/rumour on TV, in the press or on the net?

D'oh!

.
Which is why I used the term gross selfishness, to distinguish it from proper self love. Gross selfishness lacks a love of self which gets projected into lack of love for others.

I would suggest it results from an attachment to a false sense of self.

And having identified the problem we make laws to protect us from the false. These laws combined give us a picture of the nature of the divine. To the Judaeo Christians and many others this is perceived as a god with a will/purpose/consciousness.

Vivekananda believed that there is only one god - but many paths to approach that god. The exclusivity of christianity bewildered him - as it did Ghandi.

The idea that there is only on sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the cross, is the 'stumbling block' to many. I know you don't like Paul, the author of the quote, but I really do believe that is what seals our forgiveness with God.

The loss of the innocence and ignorance. We can only re-aquire innocence via forgiveness.

Agreed - and that forgiveness can only come from one place - from within.

All can know Him, not all recognise His incarnation, understand the effect of sin and what He did to overcome it, so no, not all religions lead us all the way to at-one-ment with God.

The only way is to realise that 'self' is an illusion. That all is perception, a mental construct. Then comes a realization that it is not so much the kingdom of god that is within but what we call god.

The only reason I believe it all seems so illusory is that we haven't arrived at a sin free state yet. There is much healing to be had from scientific medicine, psychoanalysis, meditation and self realisation, but that only provides us with the best body and mind with which to put our moral choices into action.

Christ is His title as Saviour. Ghandi emulated Jesus but didn't recognise the meaning of His saving power, which is a transformative power.

Ghandi certianly differentiated between christians and Christ.

Since Ghandi did not recognise the need for a saviour it would be more correct to say he saw a difference between Jesus and Christians. Since we christians are not all as able as Jesus (because of complexes or heredity) we're not a fit example, and because not all who take the name of christian are true disciples even within their limitations, it's not surprising Ghandi was unimpressed with christians.
The nominal christian who told Ghandi to worship with people of his own colour, did not act like someone seeking to approach God, as Ghandi was actually doing, much less was this the behaviour of someone who feels their sins forgiven, as real disciples do.

So that you know where I'm coming from on the subject of discipleship:
I spent over four years in one of our community houses. Enough to see the real outworking of my fellowship's faith and, more tricky, for them to see what kind of person I really am . Which is different to dressing up to be seen in Sunday best and doing a public performance of respectability. You really do have to 'walk in the light'.
When you live together you know just how hard it can be to love and be lovable. It takes more than than ideology to survive listening to your brother eat, snore, throw a wobbly... a bit like marriage

Certainly belief systems can have a transformative effect. For most though they are purely translative. They serve to translate the obvious suffering in the world to something that has meaning an purpose.

Transformation requires the dissolution of selfhood. Christ knew this.

I agree. Dissolution of the self is a frequent subject of christian songs and sermons, to make the self more into the likeness of Jesus in deed and word and thought.

The 'parabolic' interpretation of his death and resurrection is just that. In order to be 'realized' the self must first be destroyed.

There is an element of parable in the crucifixion in terms of role model for spiritual behaviour, but I believe in it as a real historical event that makes itself continue being real in the nervous systems of spiritual people everywhere.

I still hold that Paul adulterated the message.

It was Paul who wrote:
..those who do by nature what the law requires show they have the law witten on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus (Romans 2:14-16).
It is this issue of conscientousness that means christians cannot say non-christians will be judged merely on that basis of being such, and which I say means we should strive to discern the inner man, seeing past the dogma, pretensions and illusions in everyone, christian or not.

[bernee51]

Moral code IMHO is evolving - changes over time. It don't believe it is an absolute as the characteristic of 'unchanging' which you use would suggest.

...
Hmm If good and bad are subjective then we're either not progressing, or else we simply have no way of knowing if we are. Probably how we're meant to understand Adam and Eve before the knowledge of good and evil got into them.

If I use mindfulness of the happiness and well being of all as being the benchmark we are clearly 'progressing' when comparing what was generally acceptable within society a few hundred years ago as to the present day. Attitudes to slavery come to mind..

...
Slavery is a power relationship. Much like the power relationship gods once held in early societies.

The desire to be free is another species wide drive. But how is it that we know it is wrong to be slaves unless we have some innate moral sense that it is wrong?

And happiness is the default position of all - no one I know actually chooses to be unhappy. On what basis do you claim a species wide innate moral sense of the wrongness of slavery. If we were nobles in ancient Rome we may have claimed an innate sense of our right to own slaves. If born as men in ancient Greece an innate sense of the non-citizenship of women and children - who were little more than slaves. Even today, in some societies, there is an innate belief that women are little more than chattels - yet you and I may have an innate sense of equality.

Morality evolves and continues to do so.

Can we see in nature anything more than Machiavellian power struggle?
Natural selection is accepted as a suitable law for non sentients, but when confronted by the application to justify slavery we are outraged.
When we see the repercussions in the form of eugenics or ethnic cleansing we no longer think it a law we should live by, we look for some law that is not part of our mere animal nature.

Indeed - the evolution of an individual relies on egoism, the evolution of a community relies on altruism. This applies to individual tribes, or individual groups who, within a tribe will act altruistically and without - egoistically. Thus protecting the in-crowd and freely massacring or enslaving the out-crowd.

Are you familiar with the theory of spiral dynamics. All individuals and communities go through developmental levels. It is firstly individuals within communities, then communities within nations and nations within a world community, that provide the impetus to develop.

.
Which is why I used the term gross selfishness, to distinguish it from proper self love. Gross selfishness lacks a love of self which gets projected into lack of love for others.

I would suggest it results from an attachment to a false sense of self.

And having identified the problem we make laws to protect us from the false. These laws combined give us a picture of the nature of the divine. To the Judaeo Christians and many others this is perceived as a god with a will/purpose/consciousness.

Yet these laws are reliant on the false sense of self in order to be noticed. It is encouraging the maintenance of the illusion to suggest that individual salvation is not only desired but required.

Vivekananda believed that there is only one god - but many paths to approach that god. The exclusivity of christianity bewildered him - as it did Ghandi.

The idea that there is only on sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the cross, is the 'stumbling block' to many. I know you don't like Paul, the author of the quote, but I really do believe that is what seals our forgiveness with God.

My disagreemt is deeper than a disdain for Paul. I know of no need, reason or evidence for your god let alone his forgiveness.

t;]

The only way is to realise that 'self' is an illusion. That all is perception, a mental construct. Then comes a realization that it is not so much the kingdom of god that is within but what we call god.

The only reason I believe it all seems so illusory is that we haven't arrived at a sin free state yet.

I agree with this - but not for the same reasons as you. I believe we ARE in a sin free state - the fact that there has not been an arrival at a belief that we are not sin free is due to the illusion of an individual self. One that delusion dissolves the concept of sin is seen for what it is - the supposedly wrong actions by an entity that does not exist which are contravening the rules of an entity that does not exist.

There is much healing to be had from scientific medicine, psychoanalysis, meditation and self realisation, but that only provides us with the best body and mind with which to put our moral choices into action.

It also makes for a healthy 'soul' which interfaces positively with 'spirit'

So that you know where I'm coming from on the subject of discipleship:
I spent over four years in one of our community houses. Enough to see the real outworking of my fellowship's faith and, more tricky, for them to see what kind of person I really am . Which is different to dressing up to be seen in Sunday best and doing a public performance of respectability. You really do have to 'walk in the light'.
When you live together you know just how hard it can be to love and be lovable. It takes more than than ideology to survive listening to your brother eat, snore, throw a wobbly... a bit like marriage

sounds both like it was both challenging to you and no doubt supportive of you. Given that maximum growth (evolution) occurs at the border of challenge and support it is no wonder I get the impression that it was a period of growth for you.

Transformation requires the dissolution of selfhood. Christ knew this.

I agree. Dissolution of the self is a frequent subject of christian songs and sermons, to make the self more into the likeness of Jesus in deed and word and thought.

Yet there remains this obsession with salvation and forgiveness - which can only be applied to a 'self'

The 'parabolic' interpretation of his death and resurrection is just that. In order to be 'realized' the self must first be destroyed.

There is an element of parable in the crucifixion in terms of role model for spiritual behaviour, but I believe in it as a real historical event that makes itself continue being real in the nervous systems of spiritual people everywhere.

I have no doubt it is myth - but, as you state, if believed and respected as a real event can have real effects on the believers.

It is this issue of conscientousness that means christians cannot say non-christians will be judged merely on that basis of being such, and which I say means we should strive to discern the inner man, seeing past the dogma, pretensions and illusions in everyone, christian or not.

And this is a sign of true acceptance (as opposed to tolerance) of others. It is the lovingkindness Christ encouraged, it is the metta of the Buddha

[Aardvark]

Moral code IMHO is evolving - changes over time. It don't believe it is an absolute as the characteristic of 'unchanging' which you use would suggest.

...
Hmm If good and bad are subjective then we're either not progressing, or else we simply have no way of knowing if we are. Probably how we're meant to understand Adam and Eve before the knowledge of good and evil got into them.

If I use mindfulness of the happiness and well being of all as being the benchmark we are clearly 'progressing' when comparing what was generally acceptable within society a few hundred years ago as to the present day. Attitudes to slavery come to mind..

...
Slavery is a power relationship. Much like the power relationship gods once held in early societies.

The desire to be free is another species wide drive. But how is it that we know it is wrong to be slaves unless we have some innate moral sense that it is wrong?

And happiness is the default position of all - no one I know actually chooses to be unhappy. On what basis do you claim a species wide innate moral sense of the wrongness of slavery. If we were nobles in ancient Rome we may have claimed an innate sense of our right to own slaves. If born as men in ancient Greece an innate sense of the non-citizenship of women and children - who were little more than slaves. Even today, in some societies, there is an innate belief that women are little more than chattels - yet you and I may have an innate sense of equality..

I claim this is innate on the basis, not of equality in actual cultures (beause it's not there) or even on the basis of everyone/every-culture incorporating the 'right thinking' into their philosophy (because different areas of the moral code are culturally suppressed - in all cultures, including our own) but on the basis that:
1/ all cultures produce people who challenge the norm
2/ we cannot say their behaviour is shoddy/tyranical/unfair... unless we believe that they too have this sense but are suppressing it.

We may say that the slave owner of ancient Egypt or Rome, or the Mississipi red-neck has an innate sense of his right to own slaves, in which case he would be quite right to ask: Why do you think it is wrong? and we'd have to say 'because it's my opinion'. But it isn't mere opinion. In the back of our minds we expect him to agree with us. Why expect that unless we believe that all have to account to some purpose higher than personal opinion?

Can we see in nature anything more than Machiavellian power struggle?
Natural selection is accepted as a suitable law for non sentients, but when confronted by the application to justify slavery we are outraged.
When we see the repercussions in the form of eugenics or ethnic cleansing we no longer think it a law we should live by, we look for some law that is not part of our mere animal nature.

Indeed - the evolution of an individual relies on egoism, the evolution of a community relies on altruism. This applies to individual tribes, or individual groups who, within a tribe will act altruistically and without - egoistically. Thus protecting the in-crowd and freely massacring or enslaving the out-crowd.

Are you familiar with the theory of spiral dynamics. All individuals and communities go through developmental levels. It is firstly individuals within communities, then communities within nations and nations within a world community, that provide the impetus to develop..

I wasn't but I see the relevance. I think the terms used are familiar:
Chief Spiral Officer would describe Moses in Hebrew culture, leading his community out of slavery, or Merlin in Briton culture, setting up a round table of Celtic leaders to unite against the Angle-ish invaders, or Zoroaster calling for the Arian people to unite against the horse riding bandits... and the spiral story where black slaves call up Moses' as the model for freedom... which is, surely, the point of the story.

However, the spiral officer has to have not just ego, but an ego guided by somthing which is not ego. Ego only powers the the individual's efforts to make the vision into reality, it is not the vision itself. There is always the possiblity of ego taking over and stealing the vision, as in Animal Farm, where the pigs just end up becoming the new farmers, Napoleon the new monarchy, Stalin, Mao, Mugabe... the new despot.
The self/ego has to be kept under the control of the 'Spiral Learning' (Moses, Jesus, Ghandi) the self being sacrificed to it like a seed that 'dies' to be reborn and bear much fruit (John 12:24).

.
Which is why I used the term gross selfishness, to distinguish it from proper self love. Gross selfishness lacks a love of self which gets projected into lack of love for others.

I would suggest it results from an attachment to a false sense of self.

And having identified the problem we make laws to protect us from the false. These laws combined give us a picture of the nature of the divine. To the Judaeo Christians and many others this is perceived as a god with a will/purpose/consciousness.

Yet these laws are reliant on the false sense of self in order to be noticed. It is encouraging the maintenance of the illusion to suggest that individual salvation is not only desired but required..

Paul made your point in Romans 7:7 ff
The argument being that sin finds an oportunity in the law. The word he used was not Torah, specific to his own culture, but Numos, and can be taken to mean the law that emerges from the conscietiousness of any culture.
Having heard that it is wrong to covet, one then makes decisions from a basis of knowledge but not neccessarily from understanding in a coscientious way. The law saying 'slavery is wrong' was not met with equal understanding by the people of America and led to civil war. Does that mean the law is wrong?

Peter was faced with a similar dilemma about food. In Acts he had a vision saying that all food is good for him to eat, but when it came to doing so he was embarrassed in front of traditional Jews who caught him eating with gentiles (Galatians 2:11-13). An example of culture supressing vision.

The only way is to realise that 'self' is an illusion. That all is perception, a mental construct. Then comes a realization that it is not so much the kingdom of god that is within but what we call god.

The only reason I believe it all seems so illusory is that we haven't arrived at a sin free state yet.

I agree with this - but not for the same reasons as you. I believe we ARE in a sin free state - the fact that there has not been an arrival at a belief that we are not sin free is due to the illusion of an individual self. One that delusion dissolves the concept of sin is seen for what it is - the supposedly wrong actions by an entity that does not exist which are contravening the rules of an entity that does not exist.

The only reason the self can become an illusion, that we can live as freed from sin is because God has done something to enable it to be so. All in His power in fact short of meddling with our free will. Tha call is ever upwards to unity with Him where the distinction between He and Me is lost in At-one-ment, where all division from Him is salved (hence atonement and salvation).

There is much healing to be had from scientific medicine, psychoanalysis, meditation and self realisation, but that only provides us with the best body and mind with which to put our moral choices into action.

It also makes for a healthy 'soul' which interfaces positively with 'spirit'

agreed

So that you know where I'm coming from on the subject of discipleship:
I spent over four years in one of our community houses. Enough to see the real outworking of my fellowship's faith and, more tricky, for them to see what kind of person I really am . Which is different to dressing up to be seen in Sunday best and doing a public performance of respectability. You really do have to 'walk in the light'.
When you live together you know just how hard it can be to love and be lovable. It takes more than than ideology to survive listening to your brother eat, snore, throw a wobbly... a bit like marriage

sounds both like it was both challenging to you and no doubt supportive of you. Given that maximum growth (evolution) occurs at the border of challenge and support it is no wonder I get the impression that it was a period of growth for you.

I thought you would get it

Transformation requires the dissolution of selfhood. Christ knew this.

I agree. Dissolution of the self is a frequent subject of christian songs and sermons, to make the self more into the likeness of Jesus in deed and word and thought.

Yet there remains this obsession with salvation and forgiveness - which can only be applied to a 'self'

No self to begin with would not give any material to work with. No ego no drive to explore and discover. Curiosity, however, does kill the metaphorical cat. When we learn what is good and see our relationship to it we have to learn to deal with it. You divorce yourself from the illusion of self, but you are still a self, all be it a salved one.

The 'parabolic' interpretation of his death and resurrection is just that. In order to be 'realized' the self must first be destroyed.

There is an element of parable in the crucifixion in terms of role model for spiritual behaviour, but I believe in it as a real historical event that makes itself continue being real in the nervous systems of spiritual people everywhere.

I have no doubt it is myth - but, as you state, if believed and respected as a real event can have real effects on the believers.

It is this issue of conscientousness that means christians cannot say non-christians will be judged merely on that basis of being such, and which I say means we should strive to discern the inner man, seeing past the dogma, pretensions and illusions in everyone, christian or not.

And this is a sign of true acceptance (as opposed to tolerance) of others. It is the lovingkindness Christ encouraged, it is the metta of the Buddha

Ahh, integrity!
(and it came from Paul )

[muhammad rasullah]

What makes you believe that the universe had to be created by some great intelligent power? Is there any evidence that the universe requires someone to sustain it?

Why is it that you accept without proof that everything has a purpose?

How else could it have come to be?

You believe that there is a God because you cannot understand the alternative?

if there is nothing else that is proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't created that's what I'll believe because it's the most logical and reasonable explanation for me to comprehend. How did the sun and the rest of the solar system position themselves in the solar system where they are? why and how is that the earth is positioned at exactly the point where human existence is possible?

Well actually, there are many many suns and planets that are not positioned in a way suitable for life. The fact that live evolved on the one that is favourably situated does not prove Divine intervention. It would be like the puddle being in awe that the hole was built just the right shape for it.

Why is it that you accept without proof that everything has a purpose?

Well if you examine the human being and everything which he has created it all serves a purpose and there is a reason why he did it. so why wouldn't the rest of creation or things in the universe have a purpose especially man?

Humans create things with design and purpose therefore everything that appears to have design and purpose must be the product of deliberate purpose. This is rather faulty logic.

How else could it have come to be?

You believe that there is a God because you cannot understand the alternative

?
It's not that I don't understand the alternative it's that the alternative is not certain! Again like I said before unless there is proof that without any doubt any alternative is true I can't beleive it. I don't see how anyone can because it's merely speculation. knowone who beleives the evolution theory can say without a doubt that they are certain that this is true because it has not been proven and there are missing links.

Humans create things with design and purpose therefore everything that appears to have design and purpose must be the product of deliberate purpose. This is rather faulty logic.

[/quote]
Purpose doesn't come without thought. so the question you should ask after determining that everything has a purpose is who designed this purpose or who could create this purpose? I don't see how that's faulty logic please explain to me?

Well actually, there are many many suns and planets that are not positioned in a way suitable for life. The fact that live evolved on the one that is favourably situated does not prove Divine intervention. It would be like the puddle being in awe that the hole was built just the right shape for it.

Well tell why is this the only one to be able to sustain life for humans I find it hard to beleive that this is just by chance that this happened. and by chance everything else on the earth just happened to fall into place as well for the benefit of the human being. things like that in this magnitude just don't happen by chance.

[Zzyzx]

.

How else could it have come to be?

You believe that there is a God because you cannot understand the alternative?

It's not that I don't understand the alternative it's that the alternative is not certain! Again like I said before unless there is proof that without any doubt any alternative is true I can't beleive it. I don't see how anyone can because it's merely speculation. knowone who beleives the evolution theory can say without a doubt that they are certain that this is true because it has not been proven and there are missing links.

Do you insist on equal certainty, proof beyond any doubt, that the god alternative is true? Or do you accept god theories without proof and demand proof of alternative theories?

Well actually, there are many many suns and planets that are not positioned in a way suitable for life. The fact that live evolved on the one that is favourably situated does not prove Divine intervention. It would be like the puddle being in awe that the hole was built just the right shape for it.

Well tell why is this the only one to be able to sustain life for humans I find it hard to beleive that this is just by chance that this happened. and by chance everything else on the earth just happened to fall into place as well for the benefit of the human being. things like that in this magnitude just don't happen by chance.

Can you show any more reason (based on evidence and proof) to accept divine intervention theories to explain the origin of the universe and of life than there is evidence to accept “no-divine-influence” theories?

[elva]

It's always been a mystery to me why humans don't realize that "to know, is not to know" PERIOD! When we consider all the religions out there and how they all profess "to know" or to have the "truth", it's mind boggling at least to me. Many of us place dogma...tradition...creeds...doctrine...rules...laws...above everything, and more important than the needs and feelings of human beings. As Thomas Jefferson said "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstitions of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites, to support roguery and error all over the earth." That about sums it up for me!