Dear theists, are you angry at me because I argue with you?

[Elixir]

I'm always glad for the invitation to proselytize...I mean 'explain' why I think the God conclusion is true - to anyone who asks.

Having asked that question to a large number of believers and having gotten a large number of different answers, there is only one common factor that emerges as the actual reason:
"I was brought up by parents who believe".

 

[Ruth Harris]

I'm always glad for the invitation to proselytize...I mean 'explain' why I think the God conclusion is true - to anyone who asks.

Having asked that question to a large number of believers and having gotten a large number of different answers, there is only one common factor that emerges as the actual reason:
"I was brought up by parents who believe".

Not this believer. You can find my answer here.

I also have many friends and acquaintances who had the same experience I did. Non believing families and they came to faith through their own studies.

Ruth

 

[ruby sparks]

This is not a religious failing; it is a human failing.

Yes.

My take on it is that religion is a mixed bag, that there are benefits from it (personally and societally) and drawbacks. I don't see it as the underlying cause of very many problems any more than I see it as the at least partial solution to them.

That said, I must warn you that I am not averse to saying that I think belief in god is a delusion, so don't rush too fast to thank me for joining the discussion.

Also, I can be hideously inconsistent*. But lately I'm in a bridge-building or at least non-confrontational mood, I think.



*That said, there have always been things about what I might call New Atheism which I have had reservations about.

 

[Elixir]

... religion is a mixed bag, that there are benefits from it (personally and societally) and drawbacks.

I agree with that part. Early in our evolution when tribes were small, religions were almost purely beneficial. They kept tribe members united, and committed to the well-being of the tribe as a whole and importantly, to every individual within it.
As tribes grew larger and communications between them became faster and easier, drawbacks began to emerge in the form of unnecessary conflicts over belief systems, rather than over resources.
Now that "tribes" have grown into hundreds of millions, those drawbacks outweigh any residual benefits.

I'm not referring to faith, but rather to organized religions; institutions that exist purely to reinforce beliefs. Faith is misused by such organizations to mean "go with what I/we tell you regardless of whether it makes sense to you".
Actual faith is not subject to argument or alteration by threat of force or even eternal damnation. It is in fact the enemy of religion.
And faith has measurable benefits not correlated with particular belief systems or religions - traumatic injury survival rates are a stark metric that supports this thesis.
I think THIS is a paper I was thinking of - only the abstract is free now.
There are tons of anecdotes but few large studies...

 

[ruby sparks]

Now that "tribes" have grown into hundreds of millions, those drawbacks outweigh any residual benefits.

Do you think? Personally I'd be fine with saying that for both personal faith and institutional religions the benefits (personal or societal) might still have the slight edge.

That's just my personal opinion, of course. I doubt there is enough data to be especially objective. It might also be just too complicated to say either way.

 

[ruby sparks]

"Skeptics’ ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a “higher brain function” in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges."

Whoever wrote that must not have taken part in the same discussion threads on atheist forums that I have, where people changing their minds is like hens' teeth.

 

[ruby sparks]

You're welcome. (And yes, I knew. )

But let me say that, though I urge my fellow unbelievers to control their tempers and rein in their anger when talking to believers, I still understand that anger very well.

I imagine most here have read this before, but if you haven't, you should. Greta Christina: Atheists and Anger

Wow. Just....wow. This is exactly the type of discussion I avoid, simply because there is no reply I can give that will make even the slightest impact on the original poster. There is no reasoning with that kind of anger. Note that I am NOT saying that I disagree with many of her points - but what good does it do to reinforce something that is nothing more than an out of control screed?

I'm not sure how you can say on the one hand that you don't necessarily disagree with any of her points and also say you think it's an out of control screed?

I can understand why you might say, 'what's the point of expressing anger in and of itself? It doesn't help much to get us anywhere'. But even that of course is not necessarily true. Anger is a valid expression (how far would the early Sufragettes for Women's Rights have gotten without it for example?) We might agree that if a person does not do anything as a result of being angry, and just seethes passively, then that might be a problem, but there's nothing about a list of things that make someone angry which necessarily implies that. Anger is often the first step towards change, and I do think that change is what most atheists would like to see and strive for. Don't forget that for most of history, atheism has had to hide itself away for fear of consequences (to some degree or another) and still does in many, probably most places in the world outside this forum.

I myself am not a particularly 'angry atheist' (and nor is Jobar). But I'm sure there are things I could get more irked about than I do (ask me to tell you about the pervasive influence of fundamentalist religious beliefs on our local politics here in Northern Ireland for example, and how the majority Party blocks change).

As for there being no reasoning with her, I dunno. I don't know her.

...those suffering from religious delusions...

And I find it very disappointing that you have used this terminology after your previous well thought out posts. This is not something that will engender good will on the part of any believer and incline them to listen to what you have to say.

Ruth

I agree that saying such a thing might not engender good will, but.....should we not say it and just think it?

It depends what the discussion is mainly about, I suppose. If it's about whether god exists or not, then I think it's ok. If the discussion is about, say, how do we go about living together, getting on, trying to solve world issues, then imo there might be no need to say it or to bring religious beliefs into play at all, either way (as in bringing in believing or not believing). Like Jobar and I think quite a lot, perhaps most atheists here, it's not something I say to believers I meet in real life, outside discussion forums where god's existence comes up or is at least a relevant issue.

I'm not even sure that 'delusion' is the right word. "I think it's a mistaken belief" might be better. Also, look around this forum. The equivalent statement is endemic, so it's not something that's reserved for belief in god. Try the Free Will thread. Try almost any of the serious discussion topics. 'I think you're wrong' is all over the shop.

Personally, whilst you can find me getting into the god topic here (sometimes allowing myself to be rude or cheeky), I do also like talking to theists when beliefs about god are not part of the discussion. I invariably find that there is a lot of agreement on other matters. A lot of the time, it feels a bit of a pity to talk about gods at all, not least because imo almost all the theists who come here (or to other secular/atheist forums) are above-averagely liberal, rational and reasonable (not to mention a bit brave).

 

[Copernicus]

I have been a strong atheist for over half a century, so I have no trouble talking to theists about my rejection of their belief system. But that doesn't mean that I am angry with them or want to make them stop believing in deities. As a matter of fact, I see arguments over the existence of deities rather beside the point. Such arguments rest on a complex set of assumptions about how reality works. The real disagreements have less to do with whether gods exist than whether minds and thoughts can exist independently of the brains that sustain them. IOW, do immaterial spirits exist untethered to physical brain activity? If so, then deities gain plausibility. If not, then they lose plausibility. So the argument really comes down to a question of what we think nature is like. Is there such a thing as an independent spiritual plane of existence? It seems to me that all the evidence we have suggests that mental phenomena are wholly dependent on physical brain activity. Ergo, deities are fictional entities.

 

[Jobar]

"Skeptics’ ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a “higher brain function” in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges."

Whoever wrote that must not have taken part in the same discussion threads on atheist forums that I have, where people changing their minds is like hens' teeth.

In my experience skeptics are *slightly* more mentally flexible, and do change their minds a bit more often than do religious believers. But I agree that it's still pretty rare.

And, as that article states, the durability of our beliefs is a pro-survival trait. As the well-known saying goes, we want to keep open minds- but not so open our brains fall out!

In fact, when it comes to holding or discarding religious belief, I have to say that I've seen many more 'de-conversions' (loss of belief in God(s) and adoption of an atheist or agnostic philosophy) than I have 'conversions' (adopting a theistic stance after holding an atheistic one.) It may be that's because my experience is on skeptical boards like this one- but I've been told that even on believers' boards, loss of faith is a more common result of in-depth discussion of theology than is the opposite.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I'm not sure how you can say on the one hand that you don't necessarily disagree with any of her points and also say you think it's an out of control screed?

My reasoning for stating that was to be clear that I don't think she was wrong on all of her "I am angry" points - but the overall impression given by the post was "I am violently angry and it is all your fault!" As a matter of personal preference, I do not interact with anyone whose posting gives that impression be they atheist, believer, or anything else. Doesn't matter what is under discussion either. In the past I have withdrawn from discussions where the subject matter was something as innocuous as landscaping when a participant became very angry and started ranting.

I can understand why you might say, 'what's the point of expressing anger in and of itself? It doesn't help much to get us anywhere'. But even that of course is not necessarily true. Anger is a valid expression (how far would the early Sufragettes for Women's Rights have gotten without it for example?) We might agree that if a person does not do anything as a result of being angry, and just seethes passively, then that might be a problem, but there's nothing about a list of things that make someone angry which necessarily implies that. Anger is often the first step towards change, and I do think that change is what most atheists would like to see and strive for. Don't forget that for most of history, atheism has had to hide itself away for fear of consequences (to some degree or another) and still does in many, probably most places in the world outside this forum.

I myself am not a particularly 'angry atheist' (and nor is Jobar). But I'm sure there are things I could get more irked about than I do (ask me to tell you about the pervasive influence of fundamentalist religious beliefs on our local politics here in Northern Ireland for example, and how the majority Party blocks change).

Sure, there is nothing wrong with anger. But when your anger turns into a rant on everything that is wrong with other people it appears to be more an unfocused rage against the world rather than a righteous offensive action against something that should be changed.

And yes, I am somewhat familiar with Ireland's "troubles". That is a really sad situation that should never have happened if those members of the religious community were actually living their faith.

As for there being no reasoning with her, I dunno. I don't know her.

I don't know her either. It is simply the impression I received reading her post.

...those suffering from religious delusions...

And I find it very disappointing that you have used this terminology after your previous well thought out posts. This is not something that will engender good will on the part of any believer and incline them to listen to what you have to say.

Ruth

I agree that saying such a thing might not engender good will, but.....should we not say it and just think it?

It depends what the discussion is mainly about, I suppose. If it's about whether god exists or not, then I think it's ok. If the discussion is about, say, how do we go about living together, getting on, trying to solve world issues, then imo there might be no need to say it or to bring religious beliefs into play at all, either way (as in bringing in believing or not believing). Like Jobar and I think quite a lot, perhaps most atheists here, it's not something I say to believers I meet in real life, outside discussion forums where god's existence comes up or is at least a relevant issue.

I'm not even sure that 'delusion' is the right word. "I think it's a mistaken belief" might be better. Also, look around this forum. The equivalent statement is endemic, so it's not something that's reserved for belief in god. Try the Free Will thread. Try almost any of the serious discussion topics. 'I think you're wrong' is all over the shop.

Personally, whilst you can find me getting into the god topic here (sometimes allowing myself to be rude or cheeky), I do also like talking to theists when beliefs about god are not part of the discussion. I invariably find that there is a lot of agreement on other matters. A lot of the time, it feels a bit of a pity to talk about gods at all, not least because imo almost all the theists who come here (or to other secular/atheist forums) are above-averagely liberal, rational and reasonable (not to mention a bit brave).

The reason I said that was due to the fact that we had been discussing how believers and non believers could communicate, and that is definitely not the way. Let me put it this way - it has been said to me that atheists are stupid. I certainly don't believe that and have made it very clear that I will not tolerate denigration of people simply due to their belief or non belief in God. But how likely would you be to continue a reasonable conversation with someone who called you stupid for just being an atheist? My bet is that you would not want to keep talking any more than I do when I am called "delusional" for being a believer. Both are loaded terms that have the impact of stopping conversation cold.

I don't have any problem with someone saying "I think you are wrong" or "Your beliefs are mistaken in my opinion". Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the free statement of it - but my position is that I will not continue to interact with someone who deliberately uses loaded terminology to denigrate me or wants nothing more than to argue that their opinion is the only one that matters. I have better things to do with my time than talk with someone who has no intention of listening back.

I don't really consider myself liberal but maybe I am wrong. I will acknowledge that I am considered a liberal compared to most of the population of my very small town but in comparison to the US population I place somewhere in the moderate camp. And I certainly don't consider myself brave.

Ruth

 

[southernhybrid]

Hello Ruth! I just read your interesting post about how you became a Baptist. I found it interesting because I was raised in a Baptist home, but could no longer believe in Christianity once I reached the age of 18. Around the age of 19, I started investigating other religions then became an atheist at the age of 28. That was forty years ago. The belief in gods no longer makes any sense to me, but it's interesting to know how others came to very different conclusions.

I tend not to argue with theists unless they attack me due to my atheism. I try to judge people by their actions and not by their beliefs. Actually, I try not to judge anyone too harshly since I'm not a fan of free will either.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't have any problem with someone saying "I think you are wrong" or "Your beliefs are mistaken in my opinion". Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the free statement of it - but my position is that I will not continue to interact with someone who deliberately uses loaded terminology to denigrate me or wants nothing more than to argue that their opinion is the only one that matters. I have better things to do with my time than talk with someone who has no intention of listening back.

Just picking up on this piece of your post.....

If it's any .........easement or succour.....If I were to say that a certain belief is a delusion, it would not be as loaded or as pointed outwards as I fully understand it might seem. My view is that both delusions and illusions (I'm not even sure what the difference is) are part of the human condition. I believe that my sense of self and my sense of free will are both illusions, for instance. We can be deluded for and about all sorts of things, including our own motives. Don't even start me on love.

But I will take note of your understandable distaste and try my best not to use the term in relation to your beliefs.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hello Ruth! I just read your interesting post about how you became a Baptist. I found it interesting because I was raised in a Baptist home, but could no longer believe in Christianity once I reached the age of 18. Around the age of 19, I started investigating other religions then became an atheist at the age of 28. That was forty years ago. The belief in gods no longer makes any sense to me, but it's interesting to know how others came to very different conclusions.

I tend not to argue with theists unless they attack me due to my atheism. I try to judge people by their actions and not by their beliefs. Actually, I try not to judge anyone too harshly since I'm not a fan of free will either.

Hey Kathy! Good to talk to you again. Don't think we have had a conversation since Rev Joshua's forum went down.

I always find it interesting to know how others came to their positions on faith. There are a million different stories out there and each one is different.

And you might remember that I don't attack or argue. I will discuss something until the cows come home, but I feel like arguing is a waste of everyone's time and effort.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

I don't have any problem with someone saying "I think you are wrong" or "Your beliefs are mistaken in my opinion". Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the free statement of it - but my position is that I will not continue to interact with someone who deliberately uses loaded terminology to denigrate me or wants nothing more than to argue that their opinion is the only one that matters. I have better things to do with my time than talk with someone who has no intention of listening back.

Just picking up on this piece of you post.....

If it's any .........easement or succour.....If I were to say that a certain belief is a delusion, it would not be as loaded or as pointed outwards as I fully understand it might seem. My view is that both delusions and illusions (I'm not even sure what the difference is) are part of the human condition. I believe that my sense of self and my sense of free will are both illusions, for instance. We can be deluded for and about all sorts of things, including our own motives. Don't even start me on love.

But I will take note of your understandable distaste and try my best not to use the term in relation to your beliefs.

Delusions are beliefs that are typically associated with mental illness in the primary definition - and I prefer to not be thought of as mentally ill

Illusions are usually considered to be sensory related in the main definition - like optical illusions. They can also be false beliefs. But the term illusion is not a loaded term when it comes to someone's personal beliefs so it is not usually considered to be derogatory to the believer. At least not to this believer.

A minor derail here - I would be very interested to know why you think your sense of self is an illusion. I realize that this is more of a philosophical question so mods if you think it best, you can split this off into the appropriate Philosophy forum.

Ruth

 

[ruby sparks]

Delusions are beliefs that are typically associated with mental illness in the primary definition - and I prefer to not be thought of as mentally ill

Illusions are usually considered to be sensory related in the main definition - like optical illusions. They can also be false beliefs. But the term illusion is not a loaded term when it comes to someone's personal beliefs so it is not usually considered to be derogatory to the believer. At least not to this believer.

I know. And I take the point. I'm not going to pretend I haven't said it to a theist while I've been in an online discussion. But I reckon I can manage not to do it here.

A minor derail here - I would be very interested to know why you think your sense of self is an illusion. I realize that this is more of a philosophical question so mods if you think it best, you can split this off into the appropriate Philosophy forum.

Ruth

Huge topic. To me fascinating, but quite possibly unresolvable. I'm not sure I have the time for it currently, unfortunately. I should be working a lot of the time I'm procrastinating here. There are probably threads here somewhere.....and hundreds of online articles....Sam Harris wrote a book on it.

I am currently involved in another probably unresolvable debate on (what I consider to be) the illusion of free will, but even there I feel I've more or less finished and am mostly just repeating myself (to atheists who stubbornly won't change their beliefs! As it happens. Grr. lol).

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12758-There-isn-t-really-a-freewill-problem/page124

 

[Ruth Harris]

Delusions are beliefs that are typically associated with mental illness in the primary definition - and I prefer to not be thought of as mentally ill

Illusions are usually considered to be sensory related in the main definition - like optical illusions. They can also be false beliefs. But the term illusion is not a loaded term when it comes to someone's personal beliefs so it is not usually considered to be derogatory to the believer. At least not to this believer.

I know. And I take the point. I'm not going to pretend I haven't said it to a theist while I've been in an online discussion. But I reckon I can manage not to do it here.

Thank you for trying. That is very considerate of you.

A minor derail here - I would be very interested to know why you think your sense of self is an illusion. I realize that this is more of a philosophical question so mods if you think it best, you can split this off into the appropriate Philosophy forum.

Ruth

Huge topic. To me fascinating, but quite possibly unresolvable. I'm not sure I have the time for it currently, unfortunately. I should be working a lot of the time I'm procrastinating here. There are probably threads here somewhere.....and hundreds of online articles....Sam Harris wrote a book on it.

I am currently involved in another probably unresolvable debate on (what I consider to be) the illusion of free will, but even there I feel I've more or less finished and am mostly just repeating myself (to atheists who stubbornly won't change their beliefs! As it happens. Grr. lol).

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12758-There-isn-t-really-a-freewill-problem/page124

I understand perfectly about a lack of time; no problem. If you ever decide to start a discussion on this please let me know.

And speaking of time - when I have some, I will definitely look over the freewill thread. Somehow I think that maybe we might agree on that.

Ruth

 

[ruby sparks]

I understand perfectly about a lack of time; no problem. If you ever decide to start a discussion on this please let me know.

In the meantime, if you fancy something that will almost certainly make your brain hurt (it definitely made mine hurt) you could try this (it's really only on a tangentally related topic):

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...t-me-ness-quot-of-being-me&highlight=illusion

If you ever get to reading that, you'll see that I thought the OP was delusional mistaken.

The article(s) by a philosopher guy called Arnold Zuboff are what caused the headaches:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282052756_Time_Self_and_Sleeping_Beauty

This next one, by the same guy (it can be downloaded via the link below) is shorter and maybe therefore a better introduction. It's also less controversial, imo, though don't let that lull you into a false sense of security before you read the one I linked to above:

https://philarchive.org/archive/ZUBTSO-2

The non-controversial part of it, as I see it, is that our sense of 'me-ness' is to some extent independent of the content of our mental experiences, because whatever happens and whatever we experience, we will, it is claimed (the analysis is mostly by thought experiment which is a slight drawback in some ways) tend to think it's 'me', we will own it. So 'me' is not defined by a particular set of experiences. Hypothetically, this means that if I went to sleep tonight and during the night god zapped me with a divine laser beam and I woke up devout Baptist, I'd still feel like 'me' when I woke up, even though the experience was imposed on me quite suddenly. That's the theory at any rate.

 

[Copernicus]

Ruth, I understand that the use of the term "delusion" can be offensive. It is normally used to refer to a mental pathology. A delusion is a belief that a person holds despite clear evidence that it is wrong. Illusions are real perceptions--sensual ambiguities caused by the way our bodies process sense data.

Richard Dawkins made a point in The God Delusion of explaining why his use of the term was not intended to be construed as pathological, but he did use the term for its shock value. Religious faith is a socially accepted norm, so using a word that suggests there is something wrong with a widely accepted form of behavior does grab people's attention. He takes a lot of heat for his use of controversial language, but there is a method to his madness. He wants his audience to get a little angry and even defensive, because that drives them to work harder to defend the issue that he is taking a stand on. Academics like him thrive on polemical discussions that challenge convention.

One of my earliest memories is that of being intrigued by the fairy tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. It is a story that adults use to teach children about mass social delusion. Mass delusions are actually quite common, so it is important to teach our children to question conventional beliefs. What could be more conventional than religious faith? It exists in every human community. People engage in riots and wars over religion. It is a motivating force in many acts of terrorism. Not all religions can be correct, because people are always contradicting each other over which faith more accurately reflects reality. So, if there is any good evidence that a religious faith is wrong or mistaken, then it would qualify as a delusion if people ignore the evidence, no matter how compelling. For many of us, the evidence against belief in a god is rather overwhelming, so we do tend to think of religion as a (non-pathological) social delusion.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Ruth, I understand that the use of the term "delusion" can be offensive. It is normally used to refer to a mental pathology. A delusion is a belief that a person holds despite clear evidence that it is wrong. Illusions are real perceptions--sensual ambiguities caused by the way our bodies process sense data.

My point is that there is no valid reason for using terms that are known to be offensive to the other party in a normal conversation. If you truly want to have a productive discussion with someone, you don't deliberately set out to use language that you know will cause offense. For me, that is a conversation stopper; once loaded terminology is pointed at me, I just refuse to engage any further.

Richard Dawkins made a point in The God Delusion of explaining why his use of the term was not intended to be construed as pathological, but he did use the term for its shock value.

And he is also very aware that controversy sells. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money but it seems to me that he is valuing his personal wealth and status over actually attempting to raise the public perception of atheism as he claims.

Religious faith is a socially accepted norm, so using a word that suggests there is something wrong with a widely accepted form of behavior does grab people's attention. He takes a lot of heat for his use of controversial language, but there is a method to his madness. He wants his audience to get a little angry and even defensive, because that drives them to work harder to defend the issue that he is taking a stand on. Academics like him thrive on polemical discussions that challenge convention.

I don't find manipulating emotions to be a valid beginning for any real discussion. If you want someone to actually listen and learn, making them angry/afraid/unhappy is not the way to do that. And yes – I am including those who use this in religion too; I despise those preachers who try to “scare people out of hell”.

One of my earliest memories is that of being intrigued by the fairy tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. It is a story that adults use to teach children about mass social delusion. Mass delusions are actually quite common, so it is important to teach our children to question conventional beliefs. What could be more conventional than religious faith? It exists in every human community. People engage in riots and wars over religion. It is a motivating force in many acts of terrorism. Not all religions can be correct, because people are always contradicting each other over which faith more accurately reflects reality. So, if there is any good evidence that a religious faith is wrong or mistaken, then it would qualify as a delusion if people ignore the evidence, no matter how compelling.

I loved that fairy tale as a child. To me, it showed that a lack of fear could change the world.

Of course not all beliefs of all religions are correct. In my personal worldview we will not know who is actually right until after we physically die. I fully expect to be surprised by some things after my life is over. But I am doing the best I can to live my life in a manner that is consistent with faith in a God who knows that I believe in Him even if I don't have everything exactly right.

For many of us, the evidence against belief in a god is rather overwhelming, so we do tend to think of religion as a (non-pathological) social delusion.

I still take the stance that there is no physical or scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is not reasonable to use the variance in religious beliefs as evidence, as these are simply the opinions of the believer. The various scriptures were written by fallible men who likely included their own bias in the writings.

I can hear you asking now – so why do you believe in God? For me, it came down to one thing. Where did everything come from? Stephen Hawking (who I admire greatly!) first proposed that our universe began from a singularity but offered no explanation where that singularity came from. More recently he proposed that there was no boundary to the universe, which meant there was no beginning or end to it. His latest theory returns to the idea of the singularity and a beginning for time in the universe, with the added proposition that space and imaginary time together are finite but without boundary and existed before the big bang. But he also says that since the current laws of physics did not exist before the big bang that existence can be ignored since it has no impact on our current universe. It still leaves unanswered the question – where did this singularity come from? I am not convinced that it has existed without beginning or came from nothing as that requires the same faith that is involved in a belief in God since there can be no evidence to prove it.

I understand why you think belief in God is a social delusion, but the fact still remains that calling a believer delusional will do nothing toward enhancing continuing conversations with them as most people still take that description as offensive.

And now that I have written my book in reply to you, it is time for me to get back to work

Ruth

 

[ruby sparks]

For me, it came down to one thing. Where did everything come from?

But a lack of explanation for where god came from does not cause you the same type of problem? If not, then I am genuinely puzzled as to how you could say that not knowing where the universe came from was the one thing it came down to.