beenie,

Amenhotep IV would agree with you. His monothesism predates Christianity by over 1,300 years, and, his name, Amen ~ Hotep, literally means, the Sun (God) is satisfied.

The Ancient Egyptians also gave Nicaea a model for the Christian trinity, to be later developed and ratified at the Council of Constantinople. It took a few decades but they need to Buy-Some-Time ;-).

Cheers,

Oly.

"Dawkins and his ilk fail to grasp the deep need for further meaning."

As an ilk I find tremendous meaning in the real world. It's amazing; 6 billion humans each with complex brains and behaviour beyond understanding; all the ideas and constructs those brains have created from nothing; a physical universe with physical laws we barely comprehend...it's all there. Isn't that enough?

Wysiwyg, plus interpretations. Anything more is conjecture, which is where philosophy comes in. In my view 30 000 religions is testament to dissatisfaction with reality.

Some religionists have been so unkind as to say atheists believe in nothing. I fact, they believe in everything.

Pericles,

Whilst the concept of nothing after death is intellectually easy to grasp, emotionally it is not.

Coming from a family where an afterlife was assumed, I had struggled with some of the contradictions between science and the teachings of the church, but never made the step to "there is no god".

Only after the death of a close friend of mine in my late teens was I forced to consider seriously what followed. The concept of nothingness was a terrifying look into a bottomless abyss.

Only after a couple of hours did I realise that my rational for an afterlife was simply because I wanted it and not because there was any evidence.

My personnal experience prevents me throwing stones at peoples religious beliefs, only at their attempts to "scientifically" prove their beliefs.

Absolutely agree, Shadow Minister.

>>Whilst the concept of nothing after death is intellectually easy to grasp, emotionally it is not<<

Which is, of course, where the problems start.

>>Only after a couple of hours did I realise that my rational for an afterlife was simply because I wanted it and not because there was any evidence<<

Yep, that's enlightenment for you. As human beings we first look at what we want, and see the rest of the world in that light. But some of us can take a more detached view, and - while the abyss is still an emotional and scary concept - stop trying to fill that gap with our imaginations.

>>My personnal experience prevents me throwing stones at peoples religious beliefs, only at their attempts to "scientifically" prove their beliefs.<<

The only aspects of religion that puzzle me - I can very easily see why some people find it a comfort - is why religious folk put so much emphasis on i) theirs being the "right" one, and ii) insisting that others should share their belief.

It only causes problems when two competing concepts collide, when their entire basis is in the very human, very understandable, need for reassurance. A sort of permanent maternal presence "everything will be all right, my pet, mummy will look after you", but without the lousy cooking.

Ponder

"...It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;

I am the captain of my soul."

Reap what you sow?

> "The childishness of religious belief leads to all manner of evil being done to appease some mythical father figure... WE Henley raised it in his poem "Inviticus"...'

Yeah, because anyone who takes the poem "Invictus" to heart would never commit or condone mass murder http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa1 like Moses did, right?

Oops. Might want to look further afield for a different poster boy for atheism.