Imagination and reality.

Outward and Inward Man - Beliefnet

It doesn't mean that everything imagined will take you some place. A great deal of imagination is mental masturbation.
F1fan

J'C: "That really depends on how disciplined your imagination is. Much of what people deal with in reality is reality masturbation.

Almost everything we deal with in the real world is abstraction. Give a person 10 bucks or worse, charge 10 bucks on a credit card, for a latte and you have exchanged an abstraction for a frothy concoction that you abstract as a latte. If it is a low fat decaf latte you have nothing but an abstraction. As Kurt Vonnegut pointed out 'There was a soft drink bottle on the windowsill. Its label boasted that it contained no nourishment whatsoever.'"

J'C: The beginning of a conversation. To be continued

Can Injustice and violence be condoned?

Dawkins' Trashy Tract - Beliefnet

How long should injustice be tolerated? Should we condone or accept violence done to any human for any 'reason?' ...
exploringinside

J'C: "Injustice and violence cannot be tolerated. But frequently cannot be prevented. Nutjobs whether individuals or nations or political movements, will be nutjobs. Can you tolerate them? No. Can you do whatever you can to combat them in phone banks, internet movements, knocking on neighbor doors to gain support for opposing them. It is the only real choice you have short of grabbing an AK47 and becoming a nutjob."

Do you remeber Sidney Poitier's speech concerning racism and interracial marriage to his 'father' in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? [I paraphrase] 'It's going to take until your whole generation up and dies for the rest of us to be free of your prejudice.' I ask you....how many generations of Theists and Atheists must continue to live at arms length for fear of stirring up the ancient hatreds and inciting a violent outburst?...
exploringinside

J'C: "I don't remember Sidney's speech, I read the book. But bringing a person of color, a gay couple, a muslim in a chador to your church or bowling league will do more than combating those ancient hatreds with words, or that AK47."

Both sides must change their attitudes for there to arise a chance of 'co-existence.' That can only occur person-to-person, one pair at a time, outside the institutional doors that lock us into and out of human communion. Beliefnet Forums are not the answer, either; these Boards are all too often 'playpens for the bored.'
exploringinside

J'C: "Don't tell it to me. Tell it to the Shiites and the Sunnis. Tell it to the Israelis and the Palestinians. But it is no accident that China is blocking Google at the cost of its internet. And don't underestimate the power of the chat rooms and the blogs, even beliefnet. Just in the time I have been here I have seen several fundamentalist nutjobs become before our eyes more reasonable and better people. I know of several more who never posted even once. Yes we are in playpens, but as you and Fulghum know the playpen is where we learn to live."

Dawkins - Literary prize winner or bigot or both.

Dawkins' Trashy Tract - Beliefnet

You've done a mostly decent job of trashing the man's book, but what of the author, himself?
exploringinside

J'C: "I have 5 books by Dr. Dawkins on my shelf which I think are excellent interpretations of evolutionary science for the reader of average or higher intelligence. I bought The God Delusion without reading reviews based on the rest of his books. As an evolutionary scientist and popularizer of his field I think he is exemplary. As an atheist I think he is a bigot. As a responsible person I feel a necessity to combat bigotry from whatever corner it comes from. As a responsible atheist I resent the fact that his bigotry is giving ordinarily responsible theists a hobby horse to ride roughshod over atheism and atheists.

Just as I hold responsible Christians accountable for speaking out against the bigotry of the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps of the Christian world. I think that responsible atheists are on the front line for combating atheist fundamentalism and bigotry. We are a small and politically marginal minority, and have to work intelligently under the radar to achieve the changes that are necessary. Strident hate, bigotry, and mindless fundamentalism does great damage to the cause of rationality and humanistic values in todays polarized world. Someone must pay attention."

As I noted on the eSKEPTIC blog promoting Dawkins for the Noble Prize

Polemics are not literature. If Dawkins could somehow get the brain fart of “The God Delusion” out of his bibliography he might have a chance. Unfortunately it is stinking up his name if not the excellent work he has done in explaining a difficult science to a skeptical world.

Transcendence = Mama's Smile.

Science vs. Faith - Beliefnet

How does one know when they have 'experienced' the transcendent?
Ithinkfree

J'C: "Supernatural transcendence or natural transcendence is experienced by a feeling of truth or rightness, which cannot be justified rationally in any way. It might be a work of art that the only possible comment is 'Wow' or whatever one uses for the religious expression 'Oh My God.' My opinion is that this is a natural function of the brain and the attribution to a supernatural entity is a conditioned response. In other words I can't explain it therefore Goddidit.

I am quite comfortable with the thought that I can't explain it, therefore a resonance in the entire brain, conscious and unconscious is responsible. It may be that in the deep recesses of my brain a similar thing was associated with mama's smile, and therefore it was beautiful and true. Mama is no longer available to ask, but given the right incentive and time, I could probably trace any transcendent experience to the one that triggered that smile. Probably for a theist God triggered that smile."

J'C: I suspect that this is the reason childhood religious conditioning is so hard to shake. In a religious household God and mama's smile were so frequently associated that one became the other. If the baby does something right mama smiles and says "God bless you." Or even worse baby does something wrong and mama frowns and says "Sin." When I think of how hard some early conditioning was to break, see Too Big for a Fork? That was a transcendent experience of "wrong."

Defining Atheism and Transcendence

Identifying The One True Religion Beliefnet

How do you define Atheist?
Marcion

The definition of atheist I use is 'Without God.' This is a literal translation of the conventional use of 'a-.' I do not quibble at all about the reasons for being without God in one's life. As long as morality, meaning, purpose, spirituality, and even transcendence* are not attributed to God but considered natural human responses one is an atheist. Whether God exists or not is a belief not an argument, and I don't do belief or faith. Many atheists do indulge in both, but as long as God is not one of their indulgences I have no problem with them calling themselves atheists.

*'Transcendence' is a concept I refuse to cede to supernaturalists. For me it means true or beautiful but unverifiable by natural reasoning or cognition. It is the 'Aha' moment in science when the scientist knows hesh has the answer to an insurmountable (by reason) problem. It is a natural function of the human mind, or brain if you prefer but the insight was not achieved by the usual rational cognitive processes. No dualism, Blü, the mind is purely human, but complex beyond human understanding. Since the human mind created God in a transcendent error, it is even to complex for God to understand."

Note minor corrections 1/12

Religion as a Bridge to Hell

Nick A:

This is it in a nutshell. The essence of religion which leads to man becoming Man is diminished, secularized, and becomes a tool of ego concerns telling people what to do. The trouble is the human condition where the teachings of Jesus can degenerate into the spanish Inquisition. What is Man and why does this happen. It doesn't make sense but it is what happens. The logical question is what is man's nature to explain it?

People always argue about what to do or if god exists but the reality that holds us in this madness is the human condition. Arguing just perpetuates the human condition. I believe that Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc could come to agree that the real problem within ourselves and in the world today is the human condition that denies the conscious perspective necessary for us to become truly human.
The more we come to know the human condition within ourselves the more atheism and religion become related much like science and the essence of religion. I say "essence of religion" to distinguish it from religious perversion.

What knowledge from your perceptions in your opinion is responsible for your perspective? For example I must be wary of you because you are guided completely by the knowledge of perceptions and logic.
Unfortunately there is no logical reason for you not to kill me or anyone else that could serve as an annoyance. It makes perfect sense to eliminate what is undesirable providing that you don't get caught.
The only reason you wouldn't kill me is from the fear of getting caught or some societal conditioned morality which is not logical so should be ignored.
So I guess your philosophy should be to kill first if in the clear and ask questions later. It is the logical thing to do when tormented by a nuisance. am I right?

Man is an exception, whatever else he is. If he is not the image of God, then he is a disease of the dust. If it is not true that a divine being fell, then we can only say that one of the animals went entirely off its head.
Chesterton

As we are we are just performing mechanical necessities in response to universal laws. Organic life on earth including Man is just performing a mechanical necessity in its life cycles. However we have the potential to serve a conscious purpose beyond our normal reactive mechanical purpose which is uniquely human. We have the potential for conscious ACTION along with our natural inclination towards blind REACTION

The human condition is that we are hypocrites, We are both capable of compassion and atrocity depending upon which way the wind is blowing.

Evil doesn't refer to societal actions but rather what we ARE in relation to human conscious potential: inner unity.
It is the same concept as in Christianity. We avoid sincere discussion of the "human condition" but without being open to its experience, what understanding can we possibly have to build a realistic foundation leading towards ontological understanding?

Regardless of God, we are what we are. Once we admit it then the question of morality can be put into a more realistic light rather than fighting over whether atheism or theism is more moral.
Since we are as we ARE, everything is as it is. How then can either science or religion affect what we ARE to become more naturally human rather than arguing over respective idolatries?

J'C: The above is one person's apologetic for the need for God to keep humans from being "As we ARE." Unfortunately this is a common apologetic that religions use to keep believers in abject fear of their fellow humans, which of course leads to hate and bigotry.

We are the world's sweet chosen few.
The rest of you be damned.
There's room enough in Hell for you;
We won't have Heaven crammed.

This is a necessary result of the sinfulness of all people, believers or not. Believers of course can achieve salvation by the proper rituals, even for acting out "As we ARE." But beware of the non-believers they are dangerous and evil as they might entice a believer to Hell. Of course they might do all sorts of other things to keep the believer cowering in church praying frantically to "Lead us not into temptation." "We are as we ARE" and temptation is a constant companion and danger.

The hooker and it is huge and sharp is that this belief that "We are as we ARE" is universal creates a living Hell on earth that all the pie in the sky after we die even if it existed cannot compensate for.

I do not choose to live this way. I choose to observe that almost all people including religious assholes, are basically compassionate, socially desirable neighbors. The exceptions quickly reveal themselves and can be dealt with as the exceptions they are.

Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate — and quickly.
Robert A. Heinlein

[Edit] To leave on a lighter note paraphrasing the late Forrest Church "This is the day [and the neighbors] we are given. Rejoice and be glad in [them!]"

Intelligent Responses to Stimuli

Nick A:

The question then becomes if Man is capable of more than just blind reaction and its expressions of associative thought? Simone and much of esoteric thought says we are. As we are we are just performing mechanical necessities in response to universal laws.

J'C: Your last statement is just flat wrong. Once a stimulus is presented to the mind it is evaluated and integrated into the complex reality of the self, and the response is conditioned not only by the needs of the self but the evaluation of the situation presented. There are internal stimuli from the more primitive parts of the brain, but the mind is capable of overriding even basic instinctive responses. We might sweat a bit but neither fight or flee.

This intelligent reaction to all stimuli is the birthright of all humans, and most higher animals. There is no esoteric input needed from God or Guru, unless of course the individual is conditioned like a dog to obey the smarter and more powerful Alpha. This conditioning is common and perhaps instinctual as a transferal of parental obedience to others as the child matures, but it is subject to manipulation by the mind as are all instinctual responses. If, as the Jesuits claim, a child is conditioned to transfer this parental obedience by the time hesh is 10 it is fixed for life. Not strictly true, but the loss of the parental surrogate is traumatic. Simone had to reject religion entirely and become an atheist before she could transfer the surrogacy to God. Others may stop at nihilism when God dies, others may proceed to a rational atheism. Some may attempt to find a more esoteric path to the Alpha. A few never get the conditioning in the first place and take their place in their society as a rational purposeful, moral contributor. No external controls are necessary as the internal controls are built in which are, as Fulghum via Exploringinside showed us elsewhere, learned and reinforced in kindergarten. God plays in the same sandbox which is why Herm rules are generally similar except for the Alpha dominance rules.

Compassion and atrocity

Nick A:

We create programming. It explains why we can be simultaneously capable of compassion and atrocity.

J'C: Humans as social animals are incapable of atrocity without some higher level programming to cause them to counter their social imperative to respect other humans. Normally this higher programming comes from God, but insanity, nation, or even a charismatic leader can program people to go against their social values and commit atrocities.

The Wolf in the Parlor

Facebook | Home: "I just finished The Wolf in the Parlor by Jon Franklin. Ostensibly about people and dogs. He does that well with a radical theory about the relationship. But it is really an autobiography of a science journalist with Pulitzers and how he thinks.

Science these days is really the study of trees or maybe even the branches or leaves. Thanks to the journalists like Jon for exploring the forest. Highly recommended."

His radical theory is that humans and dogs are a natural symbiote that enabled both to survive the early Holocene megafauna extinction at the end of the last ice age. The humans supplied the intelligent control mechanisms and the dogs the basic emotional instincts. His speculation, even he does not call it a theory, is the symbiosis atrophied the cerebrum of the dogs, as humans did the thinking better, and atrophied the emotional centers in the humans, as humans allowed the dogs to distinguish friend from foe, provide the alerts for things that go bump in the night so the humans can deal with them, among other important emotionally based activities. He speculates that this is the cause of a 20% loss of brain mass in dogs, they no longer needed to know how to hunt, think or control their emotions, humans were much better at that, and the cause of 10% loss of brain mass in humans, as dogs were better at handling the emotional pack management issues.

An amusing hint at the end of the book: Zoloft or a dog, take your pick.

Science as a Bridge to God

The blue roads of thinking: The Human Condition:

To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing.
Simone Weil

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

J'C: So we come full circle. To restore to science its destiny as a bridge leading toward God it must be purged of that religious view of humans as God's failure to create, at the very least, a species with no need for a re-birth mediated by religion but fully capable of themselves awakening the supernatural connection to God. All scientists I know who have made this connection, and they are many as I tend to live in a science dominated world, see their mission in science not as saving their souls, but to discover the world God has created with themselves as an integral part of it along with all other humans. They have purged themselves of the need for consolation or salvation of their religion and have made that direct empowering connection to God. Most Christian scientists have done this by a return to the Synoptics and the empowering first Commandment "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." [Emphasis mine.] There is no room in that commandment for consolation or salvation.

The Purpose of Life

The blue roads of thinking: Is atheism compatible with God?: Comments: December 28, 2009 5:17 PM

J'C; ...Plus 5 for Fulghum, and 5 more for All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.
I haven't found a God that can help any more than that.

EI: The 'points' should be yours; yours is the brilliant mind that recognized the value of Fulgham's ideas and pointed me toward him; I was just following your lead.

Thank You,

J'C: Fulghum is one of those rare people who speak profoundly in words we all can understand, and even get a chuckle out of if we can restrain ourselves from ROFL.

I get no points for having been introduced to his work, or introducing others. It is simply a necessity in the purpose of my life.

The Human Condition

The blue roads of thinking: Is atheism compatible with God?:

The human condition is such that we are incapable without the help of grace of coming to objectively experience the human condition in order to reconcile it. Our defense mechanisms are too strong.
Nick A

J'C: Perhaps a good Apologetic, but certainly not a general statement about the human condition. Many humans think of the East Asians as an example do very will objectively experiencing the human condition without Grace. Some use various forms of meditation as a way to focus on the human condition, and rid themselves of the defense mechanisms but it is done without external help. Many well educated westerners particularly those without a strong indoctrination for dependence on God are able to experience the human condition, objectively, subjectively, or spiritually without the need for grace from God or other. I am well studied in the human condition, not because grace showed me the way, but because I was indoctrinated to be aware of it from my earliest conscious moments.

Each religion is alone true.

The blue roads of thinking: Materialism and God:

Each religion is alone true, that is to say, that at the moment we are thinking of it we must bring as much attention to bear on it as if there were nothing else...A 'synthesis' of religion implies a lower quality of attention.
Simone Weil

C'J: In a long lifetime of studying, and learning from religions, it is necessary to suspend disbelief to this extent to get anything from them. When I am singing a Mass it it impossible to do it right or learn from the experience if there are any reservations about God or the belief set you are singing about.
One of the reasons I do not attempt to build a coherent whole from what I learn is that not only are they alone true, they are also alone false. I suspect that if any had been true in the sense of having a true connection to God, I would have by now found God. Unlike Simone, the fact that all religions are alone false led me not to God but to a cosmopolitan understanding of morality, meaning and purpose in life.

What is Science?

If science is based on process and obscured with unfamiliar words, it nonetheless grew out of a fundamentally human, childlike curiosity. What makes the sky blue, why does ice float, what is "blood," how does the mind work? What child fails to ask those questions? What child fails to draw what she sees, or sing what he knows.
Jon Franklin, The Wolf in the Parlor, 2009. p.3.

In fifty-eight words he has explained to everyone what scientists have been trying to tell as long as scientists have been doing science, and everybody else has been asking WTF are you guys doing? Just brilliant.

Is atheism compatible with God?

The blue roads of thinking: Materialism and God:

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Nick A.: This is far easier for me to accept since I've experienced a bit of this transition. Yet I am interested how you and other atheists would react to her observation.

Is it difficult for an atheist to be open to the possibility that something has not opened in them as of yet to experience the real meaning of the essence of religion? Does it seem too elitist to consider? Yet IMO the atheist is quite right to react to the imagination of those who call themselves religious. Atheism then is a necessary purification."

J'C: Perhaps the purification Weil is talking about is the purification from the religious intercession between believers and God. A major cause of atheism is really paying attention to the religious teachings of the major religions and then committing the mortal sin of thinking about them. At that point the only thing left for those needing God is a direct personal relationship with God unmediated by religion. I think this is what Weil is talking about.

There are many people who are overwhelmed by the challenges of life and find the need for God either directly as the mystics strive for, or mediated by religions. Others of us see the challenges as just that, obstacles to overcome. Including the huge challenge of inevitable death. If an individual is unable to cope, that yearning for God gives an escape. I suspect most atheists are past that. I know I have examined many of the religious avenues of escape and found none including direct relationship with God that worked for me. This is not a rejection of religion. I have learned much about living and dying from religion. It is just a celebration of my human yearning for interdependence only with other humans. There is no part of my life that I feel a need to cede to God.

Timshel

Is atheism a belief system? - Beliefnet

I have no beliefs. Belief gets in the way of learning.
Lazarus Long: Time Enough For Love, Robert A Heinlein, 1973 p20.

J'C "This policy has served me well since I adopted it shortly after the book came out."

MANY People of VARIOUS 'Faith' Communities
endorse/embrace one or more
'Sacred Texts' ...
teilhard

J'C: "I will readily admit I have learned more about living from avowedly fictional texts 'This is a work of fiction, any resemblance to actual persons or places is purely coincidental' usually by atheist authors than I have ever learned from 'Sacred Texts' or Liturgies or Creeds which I have studied extensively. The quote itself makes the thought of Time Enough For Love or any other fiction as something to believe in an oxymoron."

J'C: I think the difference is, from another of my fictional reread texts East of Eden, Steinbeck, is that Sacred Texts say "Thou Must" and the fiction says "Thou Mayest." Steinbeck was wrestling with the story of Cain and God's command "Timshel" usually translated as Thou Shalt (triumph over sin,) occasionally as "Thou must." "Timshel" take control over your behavior, take responsibility for your actions, especially your sins, and you may become a better person because of the learning experience and triumph over the mistakes you have made.

Materialism and God

God and Consciousness - Beliefnet

Reality is anchored by a principle known as The Primacy of Existence; “Something that has objective existence in Reality exists independent of any observation.” This is quite obviously a materialistic notion and I also believe this idea is the key to most objections to Materialism. The wish that things having subjective existence could somehow be or become things having objective existence is one of the mantras of the “A-Materialist.”
exploringinside

J'C: "The only problem I have with materialism and the Primacy of Existence is, as I told Blü on a different thread, that it is boring. I have no interest at all in the subjective having an objective existence. I am quite happy with it being subjective. Art, music, fiction, myths, gods, and rituals all mean exactly nothing to the materialist since they admittedly exist only in the minds of those that can understand them. Each understanding of the subjective entity is subtly or grossly different, but people can agree on some of the important features of the entity. God may be supernatural, natural, imaginary, or a delusion in rare cases, but it is at the very least something that someone, lets call them a believer, finds to be important in their lives. One can argue all night that God has no material existence. (Not with me. I stipulate it in the first few seconds and everybody gets pissed. The materialists go off and rub the belly of the material Buddha, and the Buddhists go off in another corner to discuss the issue of non-material suffering. I go read a novel.) I find it much more interesting to find out why an intelligent, rational person can and does find God to be important in their lives."

A tree falls in the forest. Who cares whether or not the compression waves in the atmosphere qualify as noise or not. It just doesn't matter. I think this was ultimately my problem with Chemistry which was my boyhood choice of a career that lasted through my Sophomore year in college. I just couldn't get worked up about how a rocket went up. It was much more fun to deal with the absolutely subjective and political issues of getting someone to buy it so it could go up. If a car salesman thinks hesh is selling a material object, hesh had better find a job in a factory building cars. What heah is selling is prestige, practicality, social status, or political correctness. They all work to move the iron. Some of the worst salespeople are materialists, they try to sell the technology, the intercooler, and the V4. They might as well try to sell the frame. It does not work.

The Creation of Eve

The birth of Eve - Beliefnet:

"Agnostic wrote:

You're absolutely right. Clearly Eve was a divine creation, separate from Adam. Eve was created in the divine image of God Herself. In contrast, Adam evolved from primates with lower intelligence. It should be obvious that women are innately superior to males.

The Bible shows this. The very name for 'the Lord' is Yahvah. Eve in Hebrew is Chavah. If you look at the original Hebrew letters, they are even more nearly identical.

Each time a female is born, it is another divine creation. Males, on the other hand, bear far too much similarity to apes of lesser intelligence. It should be obvious.

The Genesis story shows God leading the animals and beasts to Adam for a potential mate, because Adam was just an animal. Adam almost chose a dog for a mate. But God, in Her infinite wisdom, realized Adam was not capable of living without divine help, so God gave a replica of Herself to watch over Adam.

This is clear from the Hebrew word, usually translated as 'help mate' It is 'Ezer,' a word which does mean help. But in the Bible, it only appears as a term for God Herself, or for Eve. David says, 'God is my Help (Ezer)' Eve, the Woman, was Adam's Help (Ezer). It was Adam who needed help, divine assistance. Eve was provided. She did not evolve. She had a separate divine creation.

Scientists generally are correct. Adam evolved. But religion is also correct, Eve was a Divine Creation. All the violence is the world is caused by men, who have barely evolved past their lower primate origins. Even with divine assistance from women, they often are unable to advance beyond their atavistic nature."

J'C: In light of Harold Bloom's theory that "J" was a woman, the irony in Genesis 2 is, with this post, beautifully explained.

Procreative vs recreational sex

Gender roles, family, God and Atheism - Beliefnet

Do you think there might be a biological advantage to having two parents that actually 'make love'? As opposed a family where the woman gets raped on a weekly basis? [...]I have six children. And we would have had more if I were up to it. [...] This happened because I sacrificed my life for my family and children.
Now does it bother me that they [atheists] much prefer recreational sex to procreational sex. [...]
Godman

J'C: "It would seem that parents that make love is almost a evolutionary necessity for a stable family and properly nurtured children. Which is why I object to the common religious edict that sex should not be making love it should be making children. The number of children resulting from that lovemaking should be a choice not chance, as you point out. You sacrificed your life for your family, which is a reasonable choice that I respect if your wife agreed with sacrificing her non-family contribution to society, I assume she did not work other than at home and family, and your sacrifice was the entire material support for the family.

Others may make a different choice, considering the overpopulation of the planet, that would be to combine recreational sex (I certainly hope you didn't deprive your wife of that when conception was not intended) with reproductive sex only for replacement levels. 2.3 kids, usually 2 to make up for those who choose more and both parents contribute to the economic and nurturing health of the family. I sacrificed my career several times to the needs of the family and my wife's career, and we shared the home duties equally with both doing more than our share so that the children would get the support and socialization that they needed. It worked out for the children which is most important."

Believe in yourself.

The Value of a God Belief - Beliefnet

Believe in yourself, then you die.
Lavengro

J'C: "I am OK with that. But it makes it all the more important that I not only have confidence in my capabilities to affect the society I choose to live in but also to do what I can to make a difference before I die. I have no hope of anything at all after death, whether it is Pie in the sky or or a lake of fire. Both are cons to sell belief."