Rather than seeking an external authority I CHALLENGE the "authority" of whoever makes that claim. Is it you? Someone you quote? Representative of some ideology / belief system?




Not everything is opinion. For example, if any of us holds a rock at waist level and releases its support it will fall toward the ground --�� if we deprive a person of oxygen they will die -- if we fire an arrow upward it will fall to earth -- if we properly detonate C4 it will explode -- etc. Those are far more than just opinions or agreement of authorities



In my view a human is composed of all the things you mention and more. However, that does not make them anything more or less than one of the billions of animals that inhabit a minor planet of a undistinguished star in one of the multitude of galaxies.

Of course, one is entitled to the opinion that being part of what we call nature makes one a "god." Others are entitled to the opinion that is an exercise in imagination and/or hyperbole.



Self-evident "wisdom" may appear evident and wise to the speaker / writer / presenter; however, that is no assurance that it is either evident or wise to others.



See examples of non-opinion matters above.




Testimonials are wonderful -- and typically questionable (at best) except to the originator. Claims are more credible / convincing if accompanied by supporting information that any interested person can verify.

One's personal experiences, emotions and conclusions may be convincing to them; however, when they make public statements claiming knowledge of such things, their personal "verification" (self-verification) is unconvincing except to the naive or gullible.

There is no evidence that any of us ever had a "soul." That is likely a mental construct of religions and clerics claiming "Death is not final because some part of you goes on (or comes back in another body or form)" and "Do as I say and you will be rewarded after you die."

What you seem to have actually "lost" is acceptance of a certain religion's beliefs, claims and stories. Whether that constitutes a "loss" is debatable. There are many alternatives in life-view, philosophy, morals, ethics, values. Although religious organizations and individuals tend to claim they have "the one true path", that is not at all true. And, "salvation" (after you die) cannot be shown to be anything more than creative imagination and wishful thinking.

Some of us did not "lose" a religious belief because it did not exist (and/or the attempts at indoctrination were unsuccessful). Others started along religious pathways but discovered that they "could not believe what they did not believe" (i.e, can't make myself believe what seems irrational or unbelievable).

Perhaps rather than "getting back" a belief or "soul" it would be advisable to find new pathways to fulfillment.

This idea is upsetting to those who think that humans (they themselves) are special, are not animals, were created by their favorite "god" (rather than the other way around), are "the image" of supernatural entities (rather than anthropomorphized deities), and don't "really" die but continue as a "soul" that exists for eternity (or is reincarnated as a snake or cow).

If people in general thought of humans as just part of the Earth's biological makeup, what would professional religionists (those who take any income from providing religious services) do for a living?

As a Non-Theist, I am willing to engage in a discussion regarding the existence of "god." However:

1. There are thousands of "gods" proposed, worshiped, loved, hated, feared by humans. One or more of them MAY actually exist, but that has not been decided based upon verifiable information.

2. Proving non-existence of an invisible, undetectable proposed entity is a fool's errand. No one can PROVE that invisible, undetectable unicorns do not exist on Mars. It is possible to rationally conclude that it is unlikely given the environment, but proof of non-existence does not exist.

3. In reasoned debate or discussion, one who makes a claim is expected to support the claim with verifiable evidence if challenged. Those who claim that one or more of the "gods" exist have the intellectual burden of proving their case. Any who claim that "gods" do not exist have exactly the same burden.

Atheism does NOT require denial of the existence of "gods" --�� but rather it indicates the absence of a belief. Absence of belief is NOT synonymous with denial. Some Atheists deny existence of "gods", others do not.

Non-Theism, in my case, indicates simply "not a theist" (theism is defined as: belief in the existence of a god or gods)

Yes, one or more of the thousands of proposed "gods" may exist -- waiting evidence of which one(s). Those who claim to know after reading or hearing the opinions of others or having emotional / psychological / mental "experiences" have less than a half-percent chance of picking the right "god" to worship (since there are over 2000 proposed).

Says who? Based on what information? Verification?

Are you stating an opinion or are you setting that statement forth as a statement of fact?

Isn't that more likely proof of your parents having intercourse that resulted in pregnancy? (Unless, of course one ascribes to human parthenogenesis or immaculate conception).

I decided long ago that "job" does not suit me at all well --�� and retired from "the best job in the world" (tenured university professor) at age forty in favor of personal freedom to go where I wanted and do what I pleased.

I did not take that to mean "sit on your duff and do nothing --�� or just play golf or go fishing" (damn little of the sitting, limited fishing and none of the golf or other games). I have owned a couple small production shops, taken a few contracts, explored the nation for thirty years, and done a lot of volunteer work -- BUT all are done on my terms and my schedule --�� "when I get there and if I feel like it" -- no a boss or supervisor.

Income has not been a problem because I watch the outflow of cash, never borrow money or pay interest, have no expensive tastes or habits, and do not try to impress anyone with status, possessions or lifestyle.

Lack of communication ability and/or motivation is not gender specific. It goes both ways. Some people communicate well, others do not. Since communication is important to me, I dismiss those who lack that ability or motivation.

During the past two or three years there have been a few (very few) women with whom correspondence has been interesting. We discovered that we were not "a match" but were two people interested in exchanging information, attitudes, ideas, news, accomplishments, setbacks, etc. In fact, we have become "Internet Friends."

This, of course, does not achieve an objective of finding a mate, partner, match, or even a "date." Perhaps that too could happen some day -- but I will not stand on one foot waiting.

In all probability a number of Jewish males named Jesus were born about two thousand years ago. One of them, according to folk tales, became a preacher at about age thirty. Little or nothing is known to scholars and theologians about his life before taking up preaching.

It is said that he campaigned against Jewish Temple priests and their excesses and against Roman rule over Judea. He did not last long (perhaps three years) before being executed for sedition. Followers deified him and started a new religion in competition with Judaism and polytheism.

If there are limitations of mind and body (aside from disabling illness or injury) that necessitate "slowing down" (or stop pushing, or setting a proper pace) at any age I haven't encountered them at seventy-four.

Should "burn out" have already occurred since I have been pushing all these years and continue to do so?

Okay, assuming provisionally that an "angel visit" occurred, what is the date of birth?

"I've had a lot of worries in my life, most of which never happened." - Mark Twain

Conrad, do you doubt that the aborigines survived prior to arrival of Europeans (or whites)? Do you dispute "survived fine?"

In North and South America the indigenous civilizations had existed for centuries before being conquered and largely obliterated by Europeans. Prior to the conquest it might be reasonably said that they survived fine.

Well said.

Some appear to desire or need reassurance that some mystical force or entity will "help" them. Others have learned to rely on themselves and/or their earthly support structure / friends.

Using bible stories scholars and theologians cannot even be certain of the YEAR in which Jesus was born, let alone the day. It had to be before 4 BC / BCE if Herod the Great was "Client King of Judea" for Rome (as told in stories) because that is the year he died. The day was not likely to have been during winter if "shepherds tended their flocks in fields". The place may have been Bethlehem (to "fulfill prophesy") or perhaps Nazareth (which seems more likely).

It might be a reasonable guess that the least appealing person in a multiple person photo is the profile person (though I encountered an exception with a charming photo of a woman and her mother -- properly identified as such -- both looked nice).

Using photos that are vague in any way causes me to question the sincerity of the person, their judgment, or question their apparent inability to post a representative photograph of themselves (or wonder if they are actually quite vague, blurry, or shadowy).

Bathroom mirror selfies cause me to wonder if the person does not have at least one friend who could take a photograph (or are they ashamed to admit to in-person friends that they need a photo for on-line social contact).

Written and verbal history is transmitted by humans, who are fallible, subject to error and inaccurate observations or conclusions, almost always biased in some degree or direction, sometimes deceptive or downright fraudulent. What is written as "history" represents one person's or one group's opinion of events.

Historians attempt to minimize these problems when possible by consulting a number of sources discussing an historical person or event, "disconnected" sources representing different viewpoints, to allow "cross-checking" for verification. When many sources present very similar accounts that lends credibility. When there are conflicting reports or only single or limited source, credibility is questionable.

Religious writings, the bible included, are not intended as historical documents (or generally regarded as such by theologians and scholars). Although they may contain occasional historically accurate information, their purpose is to promote a religious view (i.e. they are strongly biased). The stories they tell and claims they make about people, conversations or events are very seldom recorded by "disconnected sources." Particularly, claims of "miracles" and supernatural events are not reported by sources outside the religious writings themselves.



We tend to trust mother because we have a personal relationship with her, we observe her integrity and her reputation for truthfulness. However, we tend to be less trusting of anonymous people whose reputation for honesty and accuracy we do not know.

The identity and characteristics of bible writers is largely unknown. Even concerning Mathew, Mark, etc, theologians and scholars know almost nothing -- even their actual identity or name. What is known is that they wrote about people, events and conversations from decades or generations earlier, they did not likely observe any of the events or conversations they describe – and their sources of information are unknown.

That gospel writers sometimes tell similar stories is very weak "substantiation" -- just as having four salesmen working for the same company making overlapping claims (and perhaps copying from each other) cannot rationally be regarded as substantiating one another.

From the perspective of seventy-four years of age: I have no idea what constitutes a mid-life crisis or when it might occur.

Of course, I did buy a sports car (but that was when I was twenty-one or so) and did retire (when I was forty), did / do often associate with younger woman (at various times). Now I drive a diesel pickup, experience decades of "creative non-employment", and am living partner-free for the first extended period in my adult life (and really enjoying it).

Many people seem to be programmed to go through "phases" or do certain things at certain ages. Most seem determined to "get old" at fifty or sixty. None of that seemed to affect my life -- as though I hardly notice the passage of decades. That my offspring have offspring who have offspring does not cast me into any life role. That most of my age cohort have become sedentary (and seem to expect the same of me) does not keep me away from the fitness center or off the bicycle (both undertaken rather seriously).

Perhaps attitude has something to do with having (or not having) a crisis?

Since beliefs regarding the intangible (defined as: Incapable of being perceived by the senses; and/or Incapable of being realized or defined) are personal opinion and preference, "right" and "wrong" (or correct / incorrect) don't seem to apply as they might in those things that can be detected and studied using the senses (including instruments).

Thus, ANY belief regarding characteristics or attributes of the invisible / undetectable must be considered as valid (or invalid) as any other since none can, by definition, be substantiated.

Unfortunately, a human tendency seems to be to regard one's personal opinions and preferences as superior to those of others -- "My favorite god is real and all others are false" or "I know how to worship and others are wrong" etc.

People tend to adopt religions and "gods" that are popular or acceptable in their society, family, or association groups ("I just happened to choose Islam in a society that is 95% Muslim --�� or Christianity in a society that is 80% Christian").

Most appear to believe (at least outwardly or to some extent) that what they are told about religion and "gods" by clerics or religious writers. Those who obey clerics and writers are promised rewards (often "after you die" -- which insures no returning dissatisfied customers) and those who disobey clerics are threatened with "eternal punishment" by some sects (and in many instances actual physical punishment in real life at the hands of religionists).

Since there is no verifiable evidence that humans possess a "soul" (or any facet that transcends death), and that the supposed "afterlife" exists or that reincarnation occurs, the religious promises and threats cannot be shown to be anything more than products of human imagination.

Yes, religion is said to provide hope for the hopeless, relief for the downtrodden, reassurance concerning death, "meaning" for life, and rules to live by. Those items are important to some people and not to others.

Being believed by millions or billions is NO assurance of truth or accuracy. When the vast majority of people thought disease, drought, famine, storms, and/or defeat in battle were "punishment for sins against gods" or "the work of demons", neither was truthful or accurate. When most believed that the sun orbited the Earth, that was likewise dead wrong, no matter how many believed otherwise.

Beliefs are like that -- opinions that may be right or may be wrong -- usually without available means to determine which.