• What is religion?
• What is theism?
• What is atheism?
• What is agnosticism?

1. Physical evidence: People/things events who/which can be and have been observed/measured by people who use and have used their normal five perceptual senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste [and using, if necessary, devices such as telescopes, microscopes, and audio amplifiers, etc., to aid and augment their five perceptual senses].
2. Eyewitness reports of observed/measured people/things/events from credible witnesses. "Credible" shall mean the witness is verified by the observations of other people to be truthful, competent, mentally stable, and not likely to be making eyewitness reports for personal gain but, instead, to provide information which can be used by all people as knowledge to be used for making decisions.
3. Logical arguments consisting of verifiable and verified premises leading to a conclusion which has to be true if the premises are true. The people/things/events of the concepts, principles and techniques which are the premises of a logical argument must be verifiable and falsifiable, therefore they must be real, as contrasted with ideas about people/things/events which are speculations which cannot be verified nor falsified. The verification of the premises must be beyond a doubt; otherwise the unverified premises shall not serve as proof that the conclusion is necessarily true.

II. Scientists must create operational definitions of the terms they wish to use so they can communicate effectively with themselves, with other scientists, and with nonscientists. [7]
    Operational definitions are definitions which present the observations and/or measurements [descriptions] of the people/things/events who/which are natural phenomena; operational definitions can be used to define complex and abstract concepts, principles and techniques. For example, children often use sentence structures of "_____ [concept/principle being defined] is when _____ [observation/measurement/description of the actions/reactions of people/things/events being operationally defined]." A child may create an operational definition of love in the following way: "Love is when someone says they like you and they do nice things for you and with you ." The child's observation/measurement/description of the actions/reactions of someone who loves provides an operational definition of the term love .

III. Scientists must follow the scientific method in determining the causality of people/things/events. [8]
 

1. Specify the unit of study [the people/things/events to be studied].
2. Observe and/or measure the units of study to gather data.
3. Create a causal hypothesis which describes and predicts the causes of effects among the people/things/events who/which are the units of study.
4. Observe/measure more people/things/events who/which are units of study to gather additional data which can be used to confirm [verify] or deny the causal hypothesis].
5. Determine if or not the additional data confirm/verify or deny the causal hypothesis.
6. If the data confirm the causal hypothesis, then let other people know of the hypothesis and the scientific method that lead to the creation and confirmation of the hypothesis, and declare the verified/confirmed hypothesis to be a scientific law/law of nature; but if the data do not confirm the causal hypothesis, then either revise the hypothesis to fit the data, or else create a new hypothesis and follow the Scientific Method Steps 4-6.

IV. Scientists must list the scientific principles they have determined to be scientific principles/laws of nature, so other people can know what the scientists claim to be knowledge. Moreover, scientists must publish/present the observations and measurements of natural phenomena (units of study) by which they created and by which they confirmed/verified their causal hypotheses in order that other scientists may replicate/duplicate their observations and measurements to confirm/deny their causal hypotheses and claims of scientific principles.

Science began when Hippocrates, the Greek father of philosophy, observed a man suffering from what we now know as epilepsy and rejected the claims of priests that the cause of the victim's condition was his inability to reject demons and his consequent possession by demons. Hippocrates thought  epilepsy was caused by natural causes, not supernatural or mystical causes, and he began to look for those natural causes. He created a school of thought which became known as philosophy, which was the first science from which came medicine and all other sciences. Hippocrates is still remembered for the Hippocratic oath taken by modern doctors. [9]

Key to Hippocrates' thinking was his determination to reject the authority of priests and to observe people/things/events in the real world to learn the causality of natural phenomena. Key to the Code of Science and the scientific method is reliance upon the observation of and the experimentation with people/things/events and the rejection of any claims of scientific knowledge not based upon observation or experimentation.

When scientists are required to provide detailed descriptions of their observations and experiments, other scientists can replicate their observations and experiments and thereby confirm their claims of scientific knowledge. By this process of constant checking of claims of knowledge, the Code of Science and the scientific method produce an increasing body of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge created by scientists who follow the Code of Science and the scientific method may overturn the claims of “experts” or “authorities” including priests. That has happened throughout the centuries. People must have the truth—the facts—for making rational decisions, and the Code of Science including the scientific method offers a way to discover and learn the truth/facts that is more reliable than the claims of those who refuse to observe and experiment with the real world people/things/events who/which are natural phenomena.

    A desire is wanting a person/thing/event.
    A fear is not-wanting a person/thing/event.
    Desires and fears are interrelated by being opposites: the opposite of the desire to live is the fear of dying; the opposite of the desire to make money is the fear of not making money, or of losing money; the desire to be loved is the opposite of the fear of not being loved.
    A priority is the importance of each desire or fear compared to all other desires and fears. A priority is a desire for the achievement of a desire: how much one wants to achieve this desire compared to that desire.
    The term desire(s) can be used to represent/designate all desires, fears and priorities for convenience.

    The internal causes of an individual's behavior [actions and reactions which are effects] are his desires, fears and priorities [his mind]. That is, an individual's desires, fears and priorities cause the effects which are his actions and reactions which are his behavior.

Behavior is the individual's actions and reactions which are caused by his desires, fears and priorities.

Personality is the expression of an individual's desires, fears and priorities by his actions and reactions. Personality must be observable to the individual and other people. Personality must include actions and reactions—movements. Rocks do not have personalities because they do not reveal their desires, fears and priorities in actions and reactions [unless, as a stretch, one wants to claim that rocks have no desires to move and thus have immobile/immovable personalities]. Personality is thus what a person says and does. Personality is a style, a way of acting and reacting, a way of doing, caused and controlled by his dears, fears and priorities.

Physiological desires are desires which are unlearned, organic, inherent in the body, genetic, and involuntary [the individual has little or no control over them]. They include desires to survive, to eat, to drink, to eliminate wastes, to find shelter, to find warmth or cooling, to reproduce, to enjoy sex, to find companionship. Physiological desires are unlearned, organic—specific to each organ; they are involuntary because they are inherent in the body, because they are genetic

Psychological desires are desires which are learned in the interaction of physiological desires with environmental choices [and, in some cases, mental choices], hedonic [in contrast to organic], not inherent in the body, not genetic, and [are] voluntary [the individual has some control over them].
    Psychological desires are first general, then specific.
    The development of psychological desires is thus and therefore a two-step process.

• First the general psychological desires: Through the process of learning in the experiences of the interactions of physiological desires with environmental choices the individual learns which general category of choices satisfy (achieve) one of his physiological desires, and he develops a general psychological desire for that category of choices—for any member of that category of choices. In short, he learns which category of choices he likes.
• Second the specific psychological desires: After learning that any member of a category of choices fulfills his physiological desire, the individual experiments with members of that category of choices and further learns which specific choices satisfy his physiological desire and his general psychological desire.

We thus see a hierarchy of desires .

II. General Psychological Desire:         For Tonics.

    Environmental Choices:         Water             Milk               Tonics
                                                                                      White Milk             Seven-Up
                                                                                      Chocolate Milk       Pepsi
                                                                                                                     Coke

I. Physiological Desire:     To drink a liquid.

Proactive desires are desires for achieving people/things/events.

Reactive desires are desires for reacting to achieving/not achieving people/things/events.

Reactive desires include desires for affective reactions and impulsive reactions .

Affective reactions are feelings, either physiological feelings as sensations of pleasure or pain, or psychological feelings as emotions of happiness or unhappiness as sadness, anger and/or fear.

Impulsive reactions are desires to act and/or react, either constructively or destructively.

Constructive impulsive reactions include seeking proactive desires which can be achieved and which are appropriate [they achieve physiological desires] and negotiating common desires with other people to avoid conflicts.

Destructive impulsive reactions are linked to emotions and include the following:

Sadness from reacting to the perception of a loss or of no hope of achieving a proactive desire: impulse: to give up, to become depressed.
Anger from reacting to a perception of a violation of an expectancy, a promise, a contract, a law, or an ethic: impulse to attack someone—oneself or someone or something else.
Fear from reacting to a perception of a threat of a loss, an accident, illness, injury, genetic defect, or a verbal or physical attack: impulse to run away—from oneself or someone or something else.

A positive subjective reactive desire for reacting to a positive realization (achievement) of a proactive desire includes a desire for a positive affective reaction of the emotion of happiness and a desire for a constructive impulsive reaction to celebrate.

A positive objective reactive desire for reacting to a negative realization (non-achievement) of a proactive desire includes a desire for control over negative affective reactions of the emotions of unhappiness as sadness, anger and/or fear and a desire for a constructive impulsive reaction to solve the problem of achieving the proactive desire or to develop another proactive desire to replace it.

A negative subjective reactive desire for reacting to a negative realization (non-achievement) of a proactive desire includes a desire for a negative affective reaction of the emotions of unhappiness as sadness, anger and/or fear and a desire for a destructive impulsive reaction to (sadness) give up hope (become depressed), (anger) to attack oneself and/or someone else, and/or (fear) to run away from oneself or someone else.
 

Physiological feelings are organic and involuntary reactions to realizations of physiological desires [organic reactions].

Physiological feelings/sensations are experienced along a continuum.
 

Psychological feelings/emotions are hedonic and voluntary reactions to realizations of psychological desires [hedonic reactions].

Psychological feelings/emotions are experienced along a continuum.

Sadness from a perception of a loss or of no hope of achieving the proactive desire for a person/thing/event.
Anger from a perception of a violation of an expectancy, a promise, a contract, a law, and/or an ethic.
Fear from a perception of a threat of a loss, of an accident, injury, illness, genetic defect, or a verbal or physical attack.

1. Desire: _____ (?) [Wanting a person/thing/event]
NOTE: A desire is a wanting for a person/thing/event; a fear is a not-wanting for a person/thing/event; a priority  is the importance of each desire/fear compared to all other desires and fears.
 
    A. Proactive Desire: _____ (?)        [Wanting a person/thing/event.]
        1. Specific Proactive Desire:_____ (?) [For a specific person/thing/event]
        2. General Proactive Desire: _____ (?) [For a generic person/thing/event]
    B. Reactive Desire [For reacting to not achieving the proactive desire]:
        1. Objective Reactive Desire:
            A. Affective Reaction: None: Control Negative Emotions.
            B. Impulsive Reaction: Constructive: To achieve or to change the proactive desire.
        2. Subjective Reactive Desire:
            A. Affective Reaction:
                Sadness    [Perception of a loss or of no hope of achieving the proactive desire].
                Anger       [Perception of a violation of an expectation, a promise, a contract,
                                  a law, or an ethic].
                Fear          [Perception of a threat of a loss, an accident, an injury, an illness,
                                  a genetic defect,
                                  or a verbal and/or physical attack].
            B. Impulsive Desire:
                (Sadness) To give up the hope of achieving the proactive desire,
                                 become depressed.
                (Anger)     To attack someone:
                                  A. Oneself.
                                  B. Someone else.
                (Fear)        To run away from someone:
                                  A. Oneself.
                                  B. Someone else.

2. Realization : _____ (?) [The person/thing/event achieved/not achieved]
NOTE: A realization is the achievement or nonachievement of a desire or the avoidance or nonavoidance of a fear; a realization is positive if it is the achievement of a desire or the avoidance of a fear, and a realization is negative if it is a nonachievement of a desire or the nonavoidance of a fear.

A. Perception. [Perceive the person/thing/event who/which is the realization.]
B. Recognition. [Determine which proactive desire the person/thing/event realizes.]
C. Evaluation. [Determine the extent to which the person/thing/event realizes
the proactive desire.]

A. If the realization is positive because the proactive desire is achieved (the person/thing/event is achieved), then there is no problem, and the individual has a positive affective reaction of happiness and a constructive impulsive reaction to celebrate.

B. But if the realization is negative because the proactive desire is not achieved (the person/thing/event is not achieved), then there is a problem, and the individual will then react in accord with his reactive desire:

1. Objective Reactive Desire:

A. Affective Reaction: None: To control negative emotions.
B. Impulsive Reaction: Constructive: To achieve or to change the proactive desire.
2. Subjective Reactive Desire:

A. Affective Reaction: Negative:
1. Sadness [Perception of a loss or of no hope of achieving the proactive desire].
2. Anger [Perception of a violation of an expectation, a promise, a contract, a law, or an ethic].
3. Fear [Perception of a threat of a loss, an accident, an injury, an illness, a genetic defect, or a verbal and/or physical attack].
B. Impulsive Desire: Destructive:
1. (Sadness) To give up the hope of achieving the proactive desire,

to become depressed.
2. (Anger) To attack someone:

A. Oneself.
B. Someone else.
3. (Fear) To run away from someone:

A. Oneself.
B. Someone else.

Condition : If I achieve my proactive desire for a person/thing/event,
Consequence : then I will react with my positive subjective reactive desire for a positive affective reaction of happiness and a constructive impulsive reaction to celebrate.

Condition : If I do not achieve my proactive desire for a person/thing/event,
Consequence : then I will react with my positive objective reaction for control of my negative affective reactions of the emotions of unhappiness as sadness, anger and/or fear and for a constructive impulsive reaction to achieve or to change the proactive desire.

Condition : If I do not achieve my proactive desire for a person/thing/event,
Consequence : then I will react with my negative subjective reactive desire for a negative affective reaction of unhappiness as sadness, anger and/or fear and a destructive impulsive reaction to give up hope, to attack someone, or to run away from someone.

Peace-of-mind is a state of being in which an individual gets rid of all desires which are liabilities because they are unachievable and/or inappropriate and he keeps only those desires which are assets because they are achievable and/or appropriate, to which state of being the individual reacts with feelings of happiness.

Un-peace-of-mind is a state of being in which an individual does not get rid of all desires which are liabilities because they are unachievable and/or inappropriate and he does not keep only those desires which are assets because they are achievable and/or appropriate, to which state of being the individual reacts with feelings of unhappiness as sadness, anger and/or fear.

All people are selfish.

Selfishness is seeking to achieve one's desires and to avoid one's fears and to maximize one's happiness and to minimize one's unhappiness without regard for the desires and fears and happiness and unhappiness of other people.

But there is a difference between personal selfishness and social selfishness.

Personal selfishness is seeking to achieve one's desires and to avoid one's fears and thus to maximize one's happiness and to minimize one's unhappiness without regard for the desires and fears and happiness and unhappiness of other people.

Social selfishness is seeking to achieve one's desires and to avoid one's fears and to maximize one's happiness and to minimize one's unhappiness by cooperating with other people by negotiating commonly agreed upon desires and fears with other people, compromising one's own desires and fears when necessary but within reason, and seeking to achieve those common desires and to avoid those common fears and thus helping other people achieve their desires, avoid their fears, maximize their happiness, and minimize their unhappiness.

Cooperation is negotiating common desires, fears and priorities (goals) with other people and seeking to achieve those common desires and avoid those common fears according to the common priorities.

Coercion is refusing to negotiate common desires, fears and priorities (goals) with other people but, instead, threatening punishment and/or manipulating feelings [trying to cause other people to feel ashamed or guilty for not doing what the individual wants them to do].

An individual is first personally selfish and then, through learning, becomes socially selfish.

Civilization began when individuals realized that to achieve most if not all their desires and to maximize their happiness they needed the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people for which they, the individuals, needed to be ready, willing and able to cooperate with those other people. Civilization is renewed in every generation when individuals realize that to achieve most if not all of their desires and to maximize their happiness that they need the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people for which they need to be ready, willing and able to cooperate with other people.

The exceptions will those individuals who are sociopaths and psychopaths .

Sociopaths are individuals who are personally selfish but are in touch with reality and thus show no clear and obvious delusions and/or hallucinations but may be dangerous to other people.

Psychopaths are individuals who are personally selfish but are not in touch with reality and thus show delusions and/or hallucinations and may be dangerous to themselves and other people.

Thus, a normal individual's selfishness contains the hope of mankind. The normal individual will first be personally selfish but will learn that he benefits from becoming socially selfish, with the result that he will benefit mankind by his social selfishness. This observation realistically raises the hope that men and women will continually strive to learn to cooperate with each other and eventually create a better life for many if not most if not all of mankind.
 

Minor mental problems consist of holding unachievable and/or inappropriate proactive desires.

Major mental problems consist of holding negative subjective reactive desires which are inappropriate because they do not motivate the individual to achieve or to change his proactive desires.

Mental health is a state of being resulting from holding proactive and reactive desires which are achievable and appropriate [they achieve physiological desires]. Mental health includes peace-of-mind. Mental health involves realistic desires—desires which are achievable and appropriate. People who want what they can have and who choose to not react with negative affective reactions or destructive impulsive reactions but, instead, choose to control their negative affective reactions and to choose constructive impulsive reactions to cooperate with other people and thus avoid conflicts will develop mental health.

Mental health includes holding achievable and appropriate proactive desires and positive objective reactive desires for reacting to negative realizations of proactive desires.

If an individual has unachievable and/or inappropriate proactive desires but has a positive objective reactive desire for reacting to negative realizations of his proactive desires, then he is likely to enjoy good mental health because he will control his negative emotions and he will develop constructive impulsive reactions to achieve or to change his proactive desires.

But if an individual has unachievable and/or inappropriate proactive desires and a negative subjective reactive desire for reacting to negative realizations of his proactive desires, then he will suffer bad mental health because he will develop negative affective reactions (negative emotions) and he will develop destructive impulsive reactions (to give up hope, to attack someone, and/or to run away from someone) which are likely to lead to conflicts and more negative realizations of his proactive desires which will continue the cycle of conflicts and negative realizations and negative affective reactions and destructive impulsive reactions.

NOTE: Subjective reactive desires can be positive when a person is under a criminal attack. Such an attack would be a good time for a person to develop negative affective reactions and destructive impulsive reactions to control and defeat the criminal and thus defend himself and/or people he chooses to care about.

Secondary conflicts are differences of proactive desires.

Primary conflicts are differences of reactive desires.

Internal secondary conflicts are differences of proactive desires within oneself (between one desire for a person/thing/event and another desire for a person/thing/event).

Internal primary conflicts are differences of reactive desires within oneself (between the positive objective reactive desire and the negative subjective reactive desire for reacting to negative realizations of proactive desires).

External secondary conflicts are differences of proactive desires with someone else (you want one person/thing/event and someone else wants another person/thing/event).

External primary conflicts are differences of reactive desires with someone else (in particular, you want to react with a negative subjective reactive desire (to become sad, angry and/or fearful and to give up, to attack someone else and/or to run away from someone else) and someone else wants to react with a negative subjective reactive desire (to become sad, angry and/or fearful and to give up, to attack you and/or to run away from you).

Unresolved primary conflicts lead to cycles of additional primary conflicts until the cycle is broken by the adoption of a positive objective reactive desire.

This section concludes the theory of Operational Psychology and its description of human nature.

The next sections deal with the philosophy of religion and my life history concerning religion.

A religion is a philosophy of life that includes a moral code and a belief in the existence of mystical people, things and events who/which created the universe and all things/events in it, who/which are concerned with the affairs of human beings, and who/which have created the moral code by which humans are to live.

Religion is first and foremost a philosophy of life: A personal view of people things and events in the universe, the natural phenomena of reality.

Religion is a belief in the existence and therefore the reality of mystical people/beings, things and events.

Mystical is defined as not being readily observable/measurable by the normal perceptual senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.

Religion-based moral codes carry with them the threat of retaliation from mystical beings in the form of a denial of everlasting life, a condemnation to eternal suffering, a denial of everlasting pleasure, or pain and suffering while still in mortal existence.

Religion-based codes of morality often carry requirements to believe in and worship only the mystical beings of the religion as well as behavioral requirements commonly found in secular codes of law.

The Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian Religions
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Ex. 20: 3.
2. Thou shalt not make any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. Ex. 20: 4., 5.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. Ex. 20: 7.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy works; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy stranger which is within thy gates. Ex. 20: 8-10.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days be long long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Ex. 20: 12.
6. Thou shalt not kill. Ex. 20: 13.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Ex. 20: 14.
8. Thou shalt not steal. Ex. 20: 15.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Ex. 20: 16.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's. Ex. 20: 17.

The Mideastern religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam present the following basic mysticisms:
    One-God: Creator of the Universe and all people/things/events.
    One-Life: Which is a test of an individual's faith and character.
    Judgement: With Heaven as a reward or Hell as a punishment.

When stripped of their mysticisms, what's left of the the Judeo-Christian religions is the Ten Commandments.

Because the first five Commandments are specific to the Judeo-Christian religions and thus may be offensive to members of other religions, the Ten Commandments should not be placed into any classrooms, courtrooms, or other public and government buildings.

The remaining five Commandments are found in many secular codes of law of many governments. They are thus not unique to the Judeo-Christian religions.

One of the most unusual religions of the world, Buddhism, when stripped of its mysticism (Pure Buddhism), offers a unique code of morality.

The Code of Morality of Buddhism [10]
The Essence of Buddhism: The Four Noble Truths :
I. Dukkha: Man suffers.
II. Tanha: Man suffers because of greed, defined as excessive desire.
III. Nirvana: Man's suffering can be alleviated.
IV. Marga: Man's suffering can be alleviated by means of the Eightfold Path.

1. Right View or Knowledge.
2. Right Thought.
3. Right Speech.
4. Right Conduct.
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort.
7. Right Mind Control.
8. Right Meditation.

• Right View or Knowledge.

Knowledge of the Four Noble Truths, and of the power of reason to determine or discover a map or blueprint for one's life, and to veto false, bad, unproductive ideas.
Knowledge of life's central problem.


• Right Thought.

Also, Right Aspiration. Right Desiring. Right Intent.
Determining what is really wanted, what is really desired.
Enlightenment? Liberation? What is the person's life passion?


• Right Speech.

Language: One control one has over one's life.
Language: Two functions: 1. Reveals character; 2. Enables the person to change.
To first monitor patterns of speech:
A. Deviations from truth and the motives for the deviation;
B. Deviations from charity and the motives for the deviation.
To second make changes:
A. To speak the truth. To get rid of the ego motive for self protection and therefore experience life directly, instead of across the distance of deceit.
B. To speak charity. No overt false witness, idle chatter, verbal abuse, slander, no covert subtle belittling, tactlessness, wit.


• Right Conduct.

Also, Right Behavior.
To monitor what is done and the motives for so doing.
Goals: Selflessness and Charity.
The Five Precepts:
A. Do not kill.
B. Do not steal.
C. Do not lie.
D. Do not be unchaste:
1. Unmarrieds: No premarital sex;
2. Marrieds: No adultery, instead, restraint.
E. Do not drink intoxicants. To drink is to become distanced from reality and the Path to Enlightenment.


• Right Livelihood.

The right occupation, work, job, that helps the person stay on the Path.
Path of Liberation: Requires monasticism and discipline.
For most people: Doing that which is innocent, not criminal, that which promotes life, not death.


• Right Effort.

Will power. Toward developing virtues, controlling passions, transcending bad mind states—for the sake of love and detachment. Through effort of will the person gets rid of bad thoughts. " 'He robbed, me, he beat me, he abused me'-- in the minds of those who think like this, hatred will never cease.' "


• Right Mind Control.

Also, Right Mindfulness.
Buddhist text: The Dammapada: Opens thus: "All we are is the result of what we have thought."
Understand life and life ceases to be a problem; understand oneself, and oneself ceases to be a problem.
To Buddha, ignorance, not sin, is a problem.
Goals: Continuous alertness; self examination. See everything as it is, not as it is wanted to be.
Thoughts and feelings are transitory, not permanent. Moods and emotions are to be analyzed, their motives discerned. Control the senses. Think of fearful and disgusting persons, things and events until they are not so fearful or disgusting. Keep in mind the life goal. Have loving thoughts for all creatures.


• Right Meditation.

Also Right Absorption.
Using the techniques of raja yoga.
Through deep thought, to abandon worldliness and embrace spiritualism, to find a new life experience as well as a new philosophy of life,
by the "extirpation of delusion, craving, and hostility."
Through immediate awareness thought is eliminated and the mind rests in its true state.

The Four Noble Truths are what's left when Buddhism is stripped of its mysticism.  The Four Noble Truths are thus pure Buddhism.

A close examination of the Four Noble Truths reveals that what appears to be a code of morality is actually a theory of psychology [11] leading to the observation that mental problems (dukkha: man's suffering) are caused by unachievable and/or inappropriate desires (tanha: man suffers because of greed, or excessive desire), and mental problems can be resolved (nirvana: the alleviation of suffering) by getting rid of desires that are liabilities and keeping only those that are assets (marga: the Eightfold Path).

Notice that the Four Noble Truths focus upon the individual and his desires, particularly his excessive desires, or greed. Excessive desires cause suffering.

Operational Psychology focuses upon the difference between achievable and appropriate desires and unachievable and inappropriate desires, how conflicts are differences of desires, and how mental health depends upon keeping only those desires which are assets because they are achievable and appropriate and getting rid of those desires which are liabilities because they are unachievable and/or inappropriate.

Operational Psychology and Pure Buddhism are similar because they are theories of psychology, and because they offer natural codes of morality.

Operational Psychology and Pure Buddhism focus not upon punishing those who violate the natural moral code but upon the benefits of following the moral code for the individual and the society in which he lives.

The Buddha (Enlightened One) was a real person, Gautama Satva, a prince who lived a perfect life until he saw sickness, death, poverty, and a monk seeking truth, which caused him to become a monk and to seek truth until he judged that what he was being taught by others was not the truth and he began to seek the truth within himself and within others, until he formulated the Four Noble Truths. [12]

The Buddha, himself, never talked of an afterlife, and thus Pure Buddhism is actually a form of agnosticism, without concern for mystical beings. In essence, the Buddha said that we have a problem here on the earth and there is a way to help people help themselves and other people—The Four Noble Truths. [13] [See Huston Smith, The Religions of Man, pp. 104-109.]
 

The essence of all law is that no man [or woman] should [be allowed to] injure another [man/woman]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary.

Moreover, this quote does not require belief in mystical beings and thus does not imply or state otherwise the potential for punishment or the denial of pleasure by mystical beings.

The injunctions [commandments, orders, requirements] to not kill, not commit adultery, not steal, not bear false witness, and to not covet, can thus be enshrined in natural codes of morality, just as they are enshrined in secular codes of law. Moreover, additional civil and criminal injunctions can be created for secular codes of morality and secular codes of law.

Why would anyone follow a natural code of morality?

All people are selfish.

Selfishness is seeking to achieve one's desires and to maximize one's happiness.

There is a difference between personal selfishness and social selfishness.

Personal selfishness is seeking to achieve one's desires and to maximize one's happiness without regard for the desires and happiness of other people.

Social selfishness is seeking to achieve one's desires and to maximize one's happiness by cooperating with other people to negotiate common desires (compromising one's desires when necessary, within limits) and to achieve the negotiated common desires.

There is a sequence in which social selfishness develops [shown in reverse order]:

II. Social Selfishness: The individual seeks to achieve his desires and to maximize his happiness by cooperating with other people to negotiate and to achieve common desires.
    The individual learns that to achieve his desires and to maximize his happiness he needs the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people for which he must be ready, willing and able to cooperate with them to negotiate and to achieve common desires.
I.  Personal Selfishness: The individual seeks to achieve his desires and to maximize his happiness without regard for the desires or happiness of other people.

This sequence is a natural sequence. Children must be personally selfish in order to survive. This is entirely normal. They must let their parents know that they need help, and they must insist that their parents help them. Crying babies will get the attention of most normal people, and, certainly, the attention of most normal parents. As the individual grows and develops an awareness of the process of socialization, he realizes and learns that he needs other people to achieve many if not most if not all of his desires and to maximize his happiness. He realizes and learns that other people are not necessarily obligated to give him everything he wants. He realizes and learns that he needs the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people. He realizes and learns that in order to induce other people to cooperate with him he must cooperate with them to negotiate and to achieve common desires. When the individual accepts the idea that he needs other people, and that he must cooperate with other people, then he becomes socially selfish.

The individual who is personally selfish does not recognize that he needs other people.

The individual who is socially selfish recognizes that he needs other people—he needs cooperation from other people for which he must be willing to cooperate with them.

The need of the individual for other people will prompt him to work with other people to establish a code of conduct which will be a code of morality, and this need will prompt him to follow the code without supervision or threat of legal, civil, or social punishment.

Social selfishness is still a form of selfishness because the individual is motivated to achieve his desires and to maximize his happiness, but with the inclusion of other people into his social circle the individual's social selfishness combines with the social selfishness of other people to create a magnificent working relationship built upon a code of common desires, mutual desires, social desires, community desires.

We can count upon the fact that people are selfish, but the natural selfishness of normal people will progress from personal selfishness to social selfishness and thereby create the order that civilization will require.

Thus, the reason an individual will negotiate and follow a natural code of morality is, ultimately, selfishness.

We see, then, that a natural morality—a natural moral code—could be built upon the natural phenomenon of human selfishness.

Civilization is renewed in every generation when individuals realize that to achieve their desires and to maximize their happiness they need the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people for which they, themselves, must be ready, willing and able to cooperate with those other people to negotiate common desires and to achieve those common desires.

Those persons who are sociopaths or psychopaths will not follow any code of morality.

Sociopaths are individuals who personally selfish but are realistic, in touch with reality maintaining social and family relationships, and working and paying taxes. They may be dangerous in many ways, but nevertheless are marked by excessive personal selfishness.

Psychopaths are individuals who are personally selfish and are unrealistic, not in touch with reality, not maintaining social and family relationships, not working and paying taxes. They, too, may be dangerous in many ways, and are clearly marked by excessive personal selfishness.

Sociopaths and psychopaths are not normal—they are highly abnormal. Their abnormality is proven by the logical possibility that if they were allowed to do whatever they pleased, which would suit only themselves, in the worst case scenario they would have the potential to destroy the human race in contrast to normal people who, by cooperating with other people in the spirit of social selfishness, in the best case scenario have the potential to continue and to improve the human race.

But normal people will follow a natural code of morality because they will learn and realize that they must be socially selfish rather than personally selfish if they wish to achieve most of their desires and to maximize their happiness. Thus, the inherent selfishness of man is the reason why individuals will follow secular codes of morality if science should ever prove beyond a doubt that mystical beings never existed and will never exist, that mystical beings existed but somehow all died, or that mystical beings exist but do not involve themselves in human affairs and thus will not punish individuals who break religious or secular codes of morality.

Upon the face of the earth and among men, there are far more normal people than sociopaths or psychopaths. Otherwise, we would have far more violence and social chaos than we currently have. This being the case, we see the possibility is excellent that the majority of men, being normal, will follow a natural code of morality.

Most people do not think about what they would do, and what people in general would do, if scientists could prove beyond a doubt that gods never existed, existed but died, or exist but are not involved in human affairs. Rational people would realize that to enjoy life they would still need to be socially selfish, that they need other people, and that they need a code of conduct or morality to organize human life. They would therefore obey traffic laws, and local, state and federal laws, for to break them would cause chaos and the destruction of society and the chance for a good life here upon the earth. Life would still be good. Fun would still be fun. Falling in love, making love, having children, and being a good person would all be positive benefits of a good life and good living. For most people, life would not be meaningless without gods. Life without gods would therefore have its own meaning and its own inherent goodness.

Thus, a natural morality would be entirely possible.

I was born in Melrose, Massachusetts, the United States of America, to my parents, Mabel and Elmer Kroepel, on February 3, 1943. I learned that my parents truly loved me. I learned that my grandmothers were still alive and loved me, but both my grandfathers were dead, and, thus, I could have no interaction with them.

My mother, father, Nana K. [K for Kroepel, my father's mother], and Nana B. [B for Bishop, my mother's mother], all were Christians, therefore I was taught Christianity, and I went to church, and I believed that God existed, that He loved me, that he sent His Son, Jesus, to teach and to save people, and to be sacrificed to prove that God loved people, that there was an afterlife attainable through following the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, and believing in God and in Jesus [and, by necessary extension, believing in the Devil/Satan[, and that there was a religious explanation for all phenomena, for example, that a tree was an example of God's love, because it was put there by Him for the benefit of mankind. I was impressed by the kindness and fellowship of church members. Being partially deaf, I had trouble following sermons and often drifted into other thoughts, including an awe of the music, the organ, the soloist, the choir, the organist/choir director, and the way music seemed to implement or otherwise confirm the majesty and truth of the religious ceremonies which I witnessed and in which I participated. The presence and sight of my mother and father worshiping and singing and thus celebrating was impressive. I read the Bible through several times as a child, and as an adolescent.

In our home, we had a piano, and my mother, father and my sister, Marilyn, played the piano. I took trombone lessons. I was in the third grade. I noticed that trombone players played notes I didn't understand [harmony notes that supported/harmonized with the melody], but trumpet players played notes I could understand [melody notes]. Then I noticed that the girls were hanging around the trumpet players, but not the trombone players [they, too, apparently could not understand harmony notes but could easily understand melody notes]. So I switched from trombone to trumpet, and I started playing notes I could understand, and girls started hanging around me. Not bad for third grade.

We moved to Easton, Pennsylvania, and then to Kirkwood, Missouri.

Then my father bought my mother a Hammond M3 spinet organ for a Christmas present. Six free lessons were offered in the deal for the organ. I took those six free lessons from Lloyd Bartlett, a musician's musician and the preferred on-call pianist for top name performers who toured St. Louis, such as Frank Sinatra and Perry Como. They turned out to be pop organ lessons—how to play popular music upon the organ.

I took classical/liturgical organ lessons and music theory from Robert Heckman, the organist/choir director of the First Presbyterian Church of Kirkwood, Missouri, and a neighbor who lived directly across the street from us.

While in high school, at Kirkwood Senior High, Kirkwood, Missouri, I was approached to play the trumpet in a private band organized by fellow students. I was recognized as a musician, and I hung out with musicians, and I made money as a musician, later organizing my own bands, even playing for our Senior Class Prom.

Along the way I read our family's copy of Bulfinche's Mythology: The Age of Fable . Thus I learned the legends, gods and goddesses, and fables of the Greek religion, and the Roman religion, and the religion of the Norsemen in the land that became Norway. I found absolutely fascinating reading what seemed clearly to be fantasy and silly but which I realized was at one time taken seriously as religions by human beings.

At one time I wanted to become a church organist, but then I realized that I had a lot of trouble playing written notes precisely, and that, therefore, I might not be able to match the majesty of an organist such as Robert Heckman.

At one time I wanted to become a minister.

Then I went to college at Washington University of St. Louis, a genuine top-notch school. [Harvard is the Washington University of the East.] There I majored in psychology but also studied music theory and classical/liturgical organ. When I heard the musical magic and majesty not only of my Professors but also students my own age I became concerned that I was too far behind in my personal musical development to ever seriously consider becoming a professional liturgical organist. I understood and dealt with music theory easily and effectively. But playing either the piano or the organ was a mystery, at least as far as classical music was concerned, which had to be read and played note-for-note.

But I kept playing pop organ.

As I majored in psychology, I learned that the human mind, whatever it was, could deceive itself through delusions, false ideas caused by an individual's needs, and hallucinations, false visual/auditory/tactual/olfactory/gustatory perceptions, caused and thereby prompted by the individual's needs. The possibility of self deception through delusions and hallucinations stuck in the back of my memory.

In addition, I learned that the human mind, whatever, it was, could confuse itself because of conflicting ideas. I had trouble making decisions, weighing the pro's and con's of each possible solution to the problem at hand which required a decision, worrying about doing the right thing, the best thing, and, therefore, choosing the right choice and making the right decision. I could understand from my personal struggle to deal with personal conflicts how easy it might be to get lost in a mental chaos of competing and therefore conflicting ideas, and how difficult it might be to try to determine the truth, the right thing to do, the best decision. So, I could understand how people could have mental problems, but, later, also how they could choose religion as a way of resolving conflicting questions and creating a personal philosophy of life that included religion.

And Sigmund Freud, in The Future of an Illusion [15], had some interesting things to say about how some if not many if not all people come to need and create and believe in and live their lives according to the teachings/dogma of religions. Something about needing a strong father-like figure, perhaps a mother-like figure, and perhaps brother-like and sister-like figures to help the individual deal with life's problems, including accepting and dealing with death and the possibility of an afterlife.

I took several Philosophy courses.

Philosophy X01 [I do not remember the precise course number]: The Major Religions of the World [the Middle East Religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and the Eastern Religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism.] was taught by Dr. Alan Miller, a Christian minister. Dr. Miller told us his wonderful belief that the old Testament of the Judeo-Christian Bible was the description of an angry and warlike God who later made a covenant with His chosen people that became the New Testament of the Christian Bible in which God changed and became a God of love, who then sent His Son, Jesus, to teach and to help Jews and heathens to become Christians.

I was stunned by the fact that there were many more than one religion, that the people of each geographical area in which those religions flourished were more likely to be taught those religions than Christianity, and were just as likely to believe reasonably that their religion was true, and possibly the only true religion. I began to understand the possibility that Christianity might not be the one, true religion, as I had been taught. I questioned why if there was only one God were there so many religions, many of which had differing points of view that conflicted obviously with Christianity.

Philosophy X02: The Major Sects of Christianity was also taught by Dr. Miller. Again, I was stunned by the fact that if there was only one God, and only one Jesus, and only one Way to Heaven through Jesus, how there could be many differing views on what was the Right Way. I came to believe that a just God could not condemn people for not knowing which religion to believe. I thought to myself that if I were God and I as God chose to hide myself from their perception then I could not condemn people for not believing in me if they could not perceive me and therefore come to know me. I asked Dr. Miller for an audience, and he invited me to his home. There he listened, and pronounced my questions and beliefs as "the words of a prophet." I was stunned. Me, a prophet?!? God speaking through me?!? I was really impressed with the possibility that I could be like one of those legendary prophets of the Bible's Old Testament, that I would be in close contact with God, and that I might be an instrument of His to use for helping people.

Philosophy X03: The Philosophy of Religion was taught by Dr. Alfred Stenner, who also was a professional musician who played the piano in the St. Louis area under the name of Al Downs. Dr. Stenner never told us students what were his personal beliefs. He never supported any ideas that religion was true, but he never supported any idea that religion, in the words of Thomas Edison, "was bunk." Thus, we never learned if he was a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic.

But he did teach us what I call "the flip side of religion"—particularly, the logical arguments theists used to "prove" the existence of gods/goddesses/demons/demonnesses and the arguments atheists/agnostics and rational theists used to prove that these logical arguments as logical arguments were flawed and thus did not prove that gods/et al existed.

This course was taught by Dr. Stenner in a professional manner to present information concerning the philosophy of religion but not as a condemnation of religion, or of people who held religious beliefs. We learned each of the major logical arguments and then saw them challenged by Dr. Stenner. He taught us how to think, how to defend ourselves from claims of fact that were statements of opinion.

We studied the Ontological Argument that held the premises that God was perfect, and that to be perfect a thing had to exist, and that, therefore, God had to exist. And then we learned that perfection is a matter of definition, and definitions as definitions cannot prove that any person/thing/event existed, exists, or will exist, or otherwise happened, is happening, or will happen.

We studied the Teleological Argument which held the premises that a watch implies that it was made by a watchmaker, that the universe was more magnificent than a watch, and that, therefore, it had to have been made by a universemaker, and that, therefore God must exist to have made the universe.

And then we learned that the universe was not necessarily designed and created by a universemaker, and that, therefore, there was no necessity for a god to exist to be that universemaker.

We studied the Cosmological Argument which held the premises that all things are caused, that there is a chain of causality leading back to a first cause, that the first cause could only be God, and that, therefore, to cause all effects, God had to exist. And then we learned that if God was an uncaused cause, a first cause, that the first premise that all things have a cause is not true and invalidated the conclusion. If there was one uncaused cause, then there could be other uncaused causes. And then we learned that because the first premise was invalidated/unverified that the second premise that the first cause could only be God was itself invalidated, further invalidating the conclusion.

I did not realize then but later figured out that the creators and champions of the Cosmological Argument were really trying to find the source of causality and to claim that the source of causality had to be and therefore was God. I realized that to understand the problem of causality, that I had to be looking for a source of causality that itself, whatever it was, was not caused.

I later learned that scientists known as physicists had proven that the source of all causes is the matter and energy of which all people/things/events who/which are natural phenomena, and that matter and energy cannot be destroyed but only changed in form and thus exist infinitely forward from the past through the present into the future, as proven by Einstein's E = mc², where E = Energy, m = matter, and c = the speed of light in a vacuum (180,000 miles per second) squared. [1]

Theists, of course, asked who or what created matter and energy. But I saw that they misunderstood the reality of the discovery of the infinity of matter and energy, that matter and energy had not been proven to have been created, and that, therefore, there was credible and therefore rational justification for believing that matter and energy were not caused but instead were the sources of all causality.

Then I read the Bible as an adult, with an adult's eyes and an adult's brain and thinking capacity.
 

Prov. 30:5. Every word of God is pure.

What was the sequence of creation? Earth-Animals-Man or Earth-Man-Animals?

How many non-humans were brought aboard the Ark?

Who killed Saul?

Who or what provoked David to number Israel?

Did the Lord promise/prophecize that Ahaz, king of Judah, would not be defeated by Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel?

Isaiah 7: 10-16. Moreover, the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing to you weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

What was the name of the child/son to be a sign to Ahaz? Immanuel? Or ...

Was Ahaz, king of Judah [ruler of Jerusalem], defeated in battle by Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel? Did God correctly prophecize and therefore keep his word to Ahaz that he would not be defeated in battle?

Who was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus?

What was the precise lineage of Jesus? Was he the descendent of the line of David, meaning of the males of David’s offspring? Or was he descended from the lineage of Mary? [We have no record of the lineage of Mary.]

What happened after Jesus was baptized?

Where from Bethlehem did Joseph take Mary and Jesus?

When did Jesus first meet Andrew and Peter? Before or after he commenced his ministry? Before or after John the Baptist had been cast into prison?

 What was the sequence of events when the devil tempted Jesus? First the temple, then the mountain? Or the mountain, then the temple?

Did Jesus curse the fig tree before or after he scourged the temple?

When asked question by the accusers at his trial, what did Jesus do?

What time was Jesus crucified?

Did Jesus carry his own cross?

When Jesus died, was there or was there not an earthquake? Did or did not “saints” rise out of their graves and walk and talk with people?

This confusion of what happened concerning the earthquake and the opening of the Earth and the saints rising out of the ground and walking and thus appearing among humans is serious, for surely it would be so stunning that many of the people who were there who could read and write would have written about it to their friends and relatives and therefore we should have an extensive collection of corroborating correspondence. Alas! We do not!!

Where it is mentioned in Matthew there is no mention in Mark, Luke or John. This suggests that 1. there was no earthquake and dead risings; 2. the authors of the gospels surely were not present; 3. the gospels surely were written much later, and not by eyewitnesses.

Is God righteous? Merciful? Or revengeful? Sadistic?

What are the characteristics of God? Is He of peace? Or war?

Is God gracious and merciful? Hateful and revengeful?

Did God create evil?

Does God change?

The sins of the fathers visited upon the sons?

Is there anything god can not do?

Can any man look upon the face or figure of God? Has anyone ever seen Him?

Should men refuse the legal law?

Are there any men without sin?

Must a man do works to show his faith?

Are some angels fallen? Demons?

Will the earth abide forever?

Should a man plan for his own livelihood, and to provide for his own family?

What is wisdom?

This question is not answered. But there is a contradiction in regard to getting or possessing wisdom.

Is there everlasting life after death?

How many sons did God father?

What happened at the tomb on the third day?

What are the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus?

 Did Jesus promise a time period in which he would return and bring the Jews out of Roman rule?

The genealogies are easier to read and understand when listed in order and side-by-side.

I learned that the Old Testament of the Christian Bible was not the complete writings of the Jewish Bible for the same time period, the time predating the birth of Jesus. Instead, I learned that the Christian Old Testament was compiled to offer prophecies that would be confirmed by the New Testament, and that the New Testament was written and compiled to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, as if to appease the need of Christians that the New Testament would fulfill the old Testament and the Old Testament would predict the New Testament. [6] The proof that the Old Testament and the New Testament were fictional compilations lay in the fact that the prophecies in the Old Testament were prophecies not of the coming of Jesus many, many years later, but of people/things/events in the time period immediate to the prophecy. For example, the Christian New Testament Book of Isaiah, Chapter 7, prophesied that a virgin/young woman would conceive and bear a male child and call him Immanuel [Emanuel] as a sign to the current King of Judah, Ahaz, that he would be victorious in battle with Rezin, the King of Syria, and Pekah, the King of Israel. Isaiah, in Chapter 8, supposedly in the presence of other men, Uriah, the priest, and Zechariah, says "And I went unto the prophetess [had sexual relations with the virgin/young woman]; and she conceived, and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, 'Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.'" I noted that even in Isaiah there is a conflict between calling the child Immanuel and calling him Mahershalalhashbaz. Was Ahaz victorious against Rezin and Pekah? In 2 Kings 16: 5 I read "Rezin ... and Pekah ... besieged Ahaz ... but could not overcome him." But then I read in 2 Chronicles 28: 5-6 Ahaz was taken captive by Rezin and Pekah, meaning the prophecy that he would be victorious in battle was not kept, as if God lied to someone in all of Isaiah's writings and prophecies. The Christian writers of the Christian Old Testament translated the Hebrew word for "young woman" found in the Jewish [Hebrew] version of Isaiah 6: 14 as "virgin," and they changed the tense from "a young woman is with child and beareth a son" to "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." [7] I had to conclude that the prophecy that a virgin would conceive a son to be called Emmanuel and who would be the Savior/Messiah is not to be found in Isaiah, written, as it were, a time period seven hundred years B.C.

Randel Helms in Gospel Fictions [Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY] proved that the Christian Bible consists of Old Testament which is a fictionalized version of the Jewish Bible and a fictionalized New Testament with the intent of the early Christian writers to lie to people to convince them that the Old Testament prophesies the New Testament and the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament. The Christian Bible was written not to tell the truth but, instead, to influence people to become Christians. This fact ought to enrage all decent human beings. The early Christian writers lied to us. They lied to the people of their own times. And their lies were passed on to other people of other times. Those lies were taught to us as truth by those who loved us—our mothers and fathers. They did not know they were lying to us. In that sense they owe us no apologies. But, nevertheless, they lied to us. That is, through people who did not know they were lying the early Christian writers lied to us. The whole of Christianity now rests upon a book that is, at least for the most part, a lie. To call it a fiction is to be charitable. All who now believe in Christianity now believe in lies, which means they believe in nothing.

In other words, we have been lied to!!!

I do not like that idea!  I am angered at the thought that someone lied to the readers of the Bible, that the stories about Jesus and the miracles and the fulfillment of prophecies are fictious, that these stories were written to convince someone that they were reading about a genuine historical figure who actually performed all these miracles and proved that he was the son of God, and that he was resurrected, etc.

I began to see that the Bible could not be a reliable source of truth, of knowledge. Two sequences, two sets of facts, two genealogies of Jesus, a fictionalized Old Testament and a fictionalized New Testament—all this was too much and getting to be silly.

I began to see that a principle was being established in my mind: That a book that was inspired by a god had to be free of flaws, that a book full of flaws could not be inspired by a god.

While it is possible that gods exist, the examination of the Christian Bible clearly indicates that it was not inspired and therefore cleansed of human error and intention and therefore it is not a source of reliable information concerning gods and their interactions with human beings.

I read a Christian apologist's explanation that somehow the Bible had to have some flaws or else it would not be proof of the inspiration of God. This could not and will not ever have any reason with me. The illogic of this statement is clear and obvious; its logic is completely dark and blind.

I began to reason that a true father would never sacrifice his son, and that a true god would not require the sacrifice of someone else's son or of his son, so the Jesus story became unacceptable. If I were God I would ...

In fact, the If I were God, then ... thought began to take hold in such a way that I began to see that a God worth worshiping could not be less than what I would be if I were a god, therefore I began to lose respect for whatever god there might be in reality, and soon what little respect that remained was gone. It has not been replaced.

If I were God, then ...

1. I would not hide my existence; I would reveal myself to my people in a way that they could perceive and believe, and I would walk and talk with them, and I would perform those gentle miracles [healing the sick, replacing lost limbs, and raising some of the dead, etc.] that would convince them beyond a doubt that they know me and that I am what I am.

2. I would teach my people my history, so they would know what I did to create or otherwise arrange and organize the universe, and why I did what I did.

3. I would teach them the code of morality I would require, so they would know what I define as right and wrong, and the consequences thereof, and if or not I could and would forgive their sins, and how, if they sinned, they could prove to me that they were truly repentant and remorseful and therefore worthy of forgiveness. But I would never require the sacrifice of any living person or thing.

4. I would teach my people how to love each other, that they might not need me for many of their life's endeavors, that, instead, they could have each other to comfort and to help each other.

5. I would make myself available so that any time my people were in doubt about my existence and what I am then they could pray for me to appear and to guide them and they would find my ready and willing presence, always.

6. I would love my people and share with them the joy of my presence and happiness with them.

I worried that perhaps I was a sinner for thinking If I were God, Then ... thoughts, for I was told that such thoughts were the thoughts of a sinner, but Dr. Alan Miller did not think so, because, instead, he said he thought at least some of these thoughts, the ones I shared with him concerning the possibility that God would not condemn those people who did not believe in him because they had grown up in a different culture than a Christian culture, were the thoughts of a prophet inspired by a God, the God of Christianity.

Am I the prophet Dr. Alan Miller declared me to be? Is there a voice within me that is organizing my thinking and telling me what's right and what's wrong, what to believe, what not to believe, and what, therefore, to tell the people and what to not tell the people?

I do not know that I am such a prophet. I am not aware that the thoughts in my head are someone or something else's other than mine. These ideas have not come to me fully dressed and ready for the show, as I would expect if they came from a god. Instead, I have had to think and think and think until I formed them and made sense of them.

It was I who created Operational Psychology and the view of and understanding of human nature that lead me to understand that morality can be created without gods, from the basic human selfishness that causes us to be first personally selfish and then socially selfish, and that people following such a morality would do so because it is the right thing to do and because to refuse to follow the code would harm themselves by causing negative thoughts that they would have to deal with for the rest of their lives as a form of personal punishment they could not escape.
 

But what about the possibility that God is less than omni-everything? What would He then be? Would we then worship Him?

First of all, let's clear up what we mean by the term "exist." To exist simply means to be real in contrast to being not real. People/things who/which are real have physical attributes which theoretically, at least, can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted in contrast to people/things who/which are not real but, instead, are concepts, ideas, mental representations of people/things. Enough said.

Next, let's clear up the problem of whether or not there is any need for something to be "supernatural." If the universe is the one and only theatre within which all people/things/events without exception exist, then there is no need for any person/thing/event to be supernatural. The concept of supernatural is an irrational concept. It could not be real because of the requirement that all people/things/events fit within the one and only universe, the so-called "natural" universe, which means that all people/things/events including mystical beings must then be "natural," using the "natural" matter and energy within the universe to create changes in accord with their desires, fears and priorities. If, however, a being should be more powerful and more knowing than man, capable of creating by transforming natural matter and energy to create solar systems and life forms, then that being, though limited by its own natural qualities, could still be a god/goddess and worthy of worship.

And then let's take a look at what would be a "miracle." The current concept of a miracle is a thing/event which man cannot currently create. Thus, the healing of illnesses for which man currently has no cures and the healing of injuries including the regeneration of lost limbs, the correction of genetic defects, the restoration of life to the lifeless, the creation of immediate rainstorms, earthquakes, solar eclipses, walkings upon water, etc., are currently conceptualized as miracles if performed by mystical beings. If healings, etc., are performed by human beings, then they are not conceptualized as miracles. Why? No mysteries, no miracles.

Now, it is necessary to distinguish between belief in magic and the knowledge that all people/things/events which are natural phenomena are caused by matter and energy and therefore are no more than matter and energy, with matter and energy being the source(s) of all causality. Physics at present has no reason to offer magic as a cause of transformations of matter and energy. Magic would have to have its own matter and energy. Gods could not simply issue words and have magic take over and create the people/things/events ordered without a source of matter and energy. The fact that matter and energy would have to be present when miracles are caused means that there is a "trick" or "process" by which miracles could be created. If Man knew that there were "tricks" to creating miracles, would miracles still be miracles? If Man knew the "tricks" to creating miracles, would miracles still be miracles? If Man could learn the "tricks" to creating miracles, and developed the power to perform the "tricks" that would create miracles, would miracles still be miracles? And if Man knew how to perform and could perform miracles, would gods still be gods? Would not gods have to have some powers and/or knowledge that Man could not in order to qualify as gods?

Let's create a continuum of God types from Man to Omni-Everything God.

I. Man, of course, is limited: He is mortal, he is limited in powers, and knowledge, and is not necessarily kind to all people and all things. No God herein. NOTE: No man knows if there is a limit to the powers and/or knowledge Man might achieve; but men recognize that Man at present has limitations to his powers and knowledge. Man does not know everything and cannot do everything, but that does not mean that Man will never know everything and will never be able to do everything.

II. Superior Man, in the sense of more powers and more knowledge than other men, but still mortal. No God herein, just a more powerful and more knowledgeable human being. Would we worship him/her? If we were threatened with getting our asses kicked up and down Main Street all day and all night long, then there is a possibility we might condescend to pay him/her at least some of the attention he/she demanded, but there would be a nagging tendency to not want to worship him/her.

III. Mortal God, more powers and more knowledge than Man or Superior Man, can organize the matter and energy of the universe to create solar systems, life forms, etc., but still without the capacity to live and/or be forever. A God herein. Worthy of worship? If he/she/it could create by reorganizing matter and energy, do more than Man collectively, then he/she/it is worthy of worship.

IV. Immortal God, more powers and more knowledge than Man, Superior Man, or Mortal God, who/which can organize the matter and energy of the universe to create solar systems, life forms, etc., but nevertheless who still uses matter and energy and cannot create nor destroy matter and energy, and who/which is immortal. A God herein, and worthy of worship.

V. Omni-Everything God, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, Creator of the universe and all people/things/events within it including matter and energy. This God is irrational, most likely does not exist because, by definition and common sense, defined as reason, he/she/it cannot be completely without limitations. No god herein.
 

I. Man  Limited Powers.  Limited Knowledge.  Limited Compassion.  Mortal.  Creates by Reorganizing     Matter/Energy.  Irrational Concept.  Not Worthy of Worship.

II. Superior Man  Superior Powers.  Superior Knowledge.  Superior Compassion.  Mortal.  Creates by Reorganizing     Matter/Energy.  Irrational Concept.  Not Worthy of Worship.

III. Mortal God  Superior Powers.  Superior Knowledge.  Superior Compassion.  Mortal.  Creates by Reorganizing     Matter/Energy.  Rational Concept.  Worthy of Worship.

IV. Immortal God  Superior Powers.  Superior Knowledge.  Superior Compassion.  Immortal.  Creates by Reorganizing     Matter/Energy.  Rational Concept.  Worthy of Worship.

V. Omni-Everything God  Omnipotent [All-Powerful].  Omniscient [All-Knowing].  Omnibenevolent [All-Caring].  Immortal.  Created Everything including     Matter/Energy.  Irrational Concept.  Not Worthy of Worship.

 

We see that there are two types of gods which would not necessarily be irrational and therefore which could exist: Type III: Mortal God and Type IV: Immortal God. These gods would use the matter and energy of the Universe of which we know, so there would be no need for supernatural matter and energy. They would have powers and knowledge beyond man's, and therefore would be able to create the "miracles" that man presently cannot. Could we really accept as a god a Type III: Mortal God? Is immortality a requirement for a god?

Anyone can clearly see that we are playing with definitions in stipulating our requirements for a being to be a god. It is true that a god would be what it is without our definition of it, but at least these definitions would give us concepts/principles which would enable us to have an expectation of what a god would be/could be/might be, so when we encounter a god we would be able to recognize it to be a god. Perhaps without these concepts/principles we might not be able to recognize a god if ever one were to exist and if it were to take an interest in human beings and human affairs.

I thus have given theists a fair chance to prove some person/thing to be a god. I thus have at least an idea of what a god would have to be so I could recognize one if ever a theist were to bring one to me, or otherwise encourage one to contact me so I would know beyond a doubt that it is a god.

But beyond that, I would still need the physical evidence I could see/hear/touch/smell/taste that would prove to me that the god exists and is more powerful and more knowing than any man ever was, is or could be.

I thus reject the atheists' claim that the concept of a god is irrational. The concept of improbable gods would be irrational, but the concept of a probable god would be entirely rational, a possibility among possibilities. A natural god who/which is a part of the natural universe—the one-and-only universe—with more powers and more knowledge than man who can causes changes in matter and energy and thus create the phenomena [people/things/events] that qualify as miracles is a rational concept of a god.

Agnosticism, the philosophy of rationalism applied to religion, requires conclusive proof the existence of gods/goddesses, and as the fundamental problem concerning religion is proving if gods/goddesses exist or if gods/goddesses do not exist, as conclusive proof is not available to solve the fundamental problem, as theists do not offer conclusive proof of their claims that gods/goddesses exist and atheists likewise do not offer conclusive proof of their claims that gods/goddesses do not exist, then agnosticism stands as the only true, rational theory of religion.

This is my belief, based upon my knowledge, concerning the fundamental problem of religion.

This why I am an agnostic.

Bibliography

[1] On the First Law of Thermodynamics:

Alan Isaacs, John Daintith and Elizabeth Martin, eds.
Concise Science Dictionary.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, New York, NY U.S.A.
p. 691.

Siegfried Mandel, ed.
Dictionary of Science.
Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, New York, NY 10017, 1975.
p. 333.

On Dr. Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity:

Albert Einstein, translated by Robert W. Lawson.
Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, 1961.
pp. 45-48.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Four Lectures on relativity and space.
Dover Publications, inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014, originally published by the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1923.
pp. 8, 44.

Jeremy Bernstein.
Einstein.
Penguin Books, 625 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, U.S.A, 1976.
pp. 97-98.

[2] huios is ancient Greek for "biological son of" and cannot be translated as "legal son of" or "son-in-law-of." [See huios in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and/or Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.]

[3] Gordon Stein, Ph.D.
An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism.
p. 182.

[4] Thomas Paine.
The Age of Reason.
in Gordon Stein, Ph.D.
An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism.
pp. 132-133.

[5] Randel Helms.
Gospel Fictions.
Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, NY 14228-2197.

[6] Randel Helms.
Gospel Fictions.

[7] G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball.
The Bible Handbook.
The American Atheist Press.
1977.
p.