• The Prayer of an Atheist who Loves God

    From Denise Stevens@RICKSBBS to All on Wed Feb 11 06:30:01 2026
    Foreword:

    The Prayer of an Atheist who Loves God

    God, oh God, why have You forsaken us all? Why did You
    create us with so little knowledge of Yourself? Why are we
    so far from understanding You that none of us can say with
    complete certainty whether You even exist? There is not the
    devoutest among beleivers that could show You to me and none
    either that could comfort me with full faith that You are
    not. Show yourself to me, so that I can know You. I doubt,
    and I am told by those with faith in You that what You want
    from me is not the love that comes from knowing You, for the
    love from those that know You comes so easily, as we were
    created by You in Your image and just as we love ourselves,
    if we see You we would love You. No, I am told, instead You
    expect from us to see Your beauty without eyes, to hear Your
    gentle loving voice with deaf ears. We must eat Your food
    without tasting, chewing or swallowing. We must have faith
    that You are with us and love You with all our hearts all the
    time shadowed with the abysmal fear and doubt that there is
    no You. God, You expect too much from us! Miracles come
    easily to You, but You created us lowly beings without the
    means for miracles. How easy it is to despise You with the
    fervor of a lover betrayed!
    And it is even easier to disbeleive those who have faith
    in You, for they are human like me and cannot see You, cannot
    know You. There is no other on earth that I can beleive,
    many for lack of trust I can afford them, most of the rest
    for the haunting knowledge that they are as easily deceived
    as I. Truly, none of us are close to You, and the only
    pathfinders are blind, misguided worms such as myself. Do
    You delight Yourself in the pathetic attempts we make to find
    You? Are You chortling to Yourself over my plight at this
    very minute? Did You create us to observe our endless
    confusion? Or do You even care?






























    In the time since I wrote the above I have received no
    answer. My heart has not filled with an unexplained faith
    that any God exists, nor have I formulated a satisfactory
    denial of God's presence. I have no choice but to wonder
    where we came from. The first question that must be answered
    on the path towards determination of God's existence is
    whether or not we can assume human existance.
    I do not intend to spend a lot of time discussing
    existance, as it is a subject that cannot be fully proven.
    The question `how can we assume that reality and perception
    have any link whatsoever?' is only answered `we cannot.' So
    the fact that we percieve ourselves as existing does not
    prove our existance; the fact `I think' does not prove `I am'
    within our normal definitions. If, however, we expand our
    definition of existance to include our perceptions, the
    question becomes a redundancy. It must be remembered that
    this does not mean that our perceptions equal reality, but
    that our perceptions are a part of reality. If one deludes
    him or her self that he or she is a prophet, that does not
    neccesarily indicate that he or she actually is a prophet,
    but the unreality of what this person is deluding about does
    not affect the reality of the delusion. The delusion exists.
    It is not a fake delusion; it is a very real delusion. Given
    the possibility that we are simply following a set of
    illusions that we percieve as life, we cannot fully assume
    that reality is as we percieve it, but the illusion (if
    indeed that's all it is) is exactly as we percieve it. Our
    perception of human existance does not prove human existance,
    but it does prove existance, at the very least, of the
    illusion.
    So if we exist, how did we come to existance? If God is
    our creator, then is it not fair to assume that if we find
    our creator, we can call it God?
    God, according to the faithful, is infinite. Our
    universe is also. There are a great many scientists who
    would contradict me here, and they have studied the universe
    more than I have but sceince, like theology, is merely a
    fallable human quest based in human perception. As such,
    with no intended disrespect to those who know more than I, I
    will disagree. The universe is infinite, undivided, and
    unchangable, although we percieve it as being finite,
    divided, and malleable. The universe appears finite because
    it is expanding (is space expanding? is time contracting? is
    there any difference?) and the more distant an object is, the
    faster it appears to be moving away from us. The light and
    other radiation (the only means we currently have to percieve
    almost anything beyond our atmosphere) from those objects
    that appear to be approaching the speed of light in a
    direction away from us will be completely red-shifted until
    the wavelength is so long that we cannot percieve it as a
    wave. This gives us a percievable boundary of the universe
    of about 15 billion light-years in all directions but does
    not indicate that there is nothing beyond this perceivable
    boundary. For a more complete (and more accurate) account of












    the universe's infinicy, indivisability and unalterability,
    read John Dobson's Advaita Vedanta and Modern Science.
    Especially any devout athiests will agree with me that
    we were spawned from the universe. Life is a product of this
    planet which came out of the sun which collected itself out
    of a cloud of gases floating within this galaxy which is just
    one of many in our universe. So our creator, in a sense, is
    the entirety of the universe, something that is infite yet
    undividable and unchangable. Sounds an awful lot like many
    people's description of God, does it not?
    To even the dull witted readers it must be obvious that
    I am getting around to a cross between an overmind theory and
    an expanded scale Earth-Mother sort of religion. I won't
    completely deny this, but emphatically insist on the wider
    scope, as there is a lot more to the universe that spawned us
    than Earth. I also reject the sexism inherent in the title.
    A creator would of neccessity be of a different order of
    being than ourselves, perhaps beyond any human biological
    labelling of gender, or perhaps simply simultaneously
    germinator and geminatee. I am also very wary of the term
    overmind. It brings to mind a conciousness far too
    anthropomorphised to accept as coming from something as grand
    as the universe around us.
    Like those that are trying to prove that our Earth is
    itself a living being, I will present the theory that
    everything is alive. It is perhaps true that we humans have
    defined life in a very narrow scope. New evidence of
    communication between trees and other plants make me and I'm
    sure others, wonder if plants are not only alive (as we
    already knew) but concious. It would be ridiculous to assume
    that plants' conciousness would be similar to our own, but it
    also seems humanocentric to assume that the state plants have
    is inferior. The only way that we can claim superiority is
    to prove that plants have a state of mind that is similar to
    a human state of mind, only stupider. If plants have a
    dissimilar state of being, we have no reference to call one
    better or worse.
    Nobody has yet proven that the earth itself is a living
    being, and I believe that if we are looking for a human
    conciousness or even plant conciousness, we will never find
    one. Could it possibly be said that existance equals, in
    some way, life? Biologists and chemists have for decades
    posed the idea that humans are merely extremely complex
    combinations of certain chemicals and nothing more; that our
    perception of conciousness stems from our complexity and not
    from a `soul.' Some of these theories suggest that the
    computers we have already designed have an extremely far less
    complex version of our own sort of conciousness and that by
    constructing a computer with bits roughly equivelent in
    number to the number of our synapses, we will have created a
    rough equivelant to a `conscious' human brain.
    If there is nothing special about the things that we
    call `alive' that make them so, why is it impossible that a
    simple rock could be considered alive? It depends entirely












    upon your definition of life. If you feel that life is
    comprised of animation, growth and some form of consciousness
    then the rock quite clearly is not alive. If, however, you
    are willing to accept that the only things that make us seem
    alive are the specificity and complexity of certain groups of
    chemicals, then a rock can be looked at as a non-specific,
    uncomplicated version of ourselves.
    Now, a simple rock is not complex in its composition,
    but the universe, comprised of rocks, gases, energy, and
    space is incredibly complex, as scientists are showing to be
    true each day. It seems conceivable that the universe of
    which we are several parts, could be considered a living
    organism. If the universe is indeed expanding, perhaps we
    can look upon this as growth.
    This universe/organism has spawned all of us. As part
    of its natural process, it has created us. And we are a part
    of it. If it is our creator, we can call it God. Each and
    every one of us is a very small part of God.

    Now that we have unveiled God, how can we worship It?
    What could the universe want from us? What can we, puny
    mortals give to show our gratitude for existance? I am sure
    that God is not aware of us, as we are not aware of our
    kidney. I would not want my kindey to worship me. My best
    second-guessing of God is that It would only want us to
    perform our natural functions. It would (if, indeed it had
    any awareness of us) not try to alter the course of our
    behaviour. It is up to us to determine the proper course for
    ourselves. God, in this theory, is as mysterious as any
    other of mankind's gods.
    It is because of this mystery that we all strive to
    discover God. Perhaps an acceptable form of worship is
    study. If we study God, we discover how It works and we are
    at a better advantage to thrive within It. I see no reason
    why God would be offended at science. If it were aware in a
    manner similar to ours, I should think It would approve of
    our inquisitiveness of It.

























    X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X

    Another file downloaded from: NIRVANAnet(tm)

    & the Temple of the Screaming Electron Jeff Hunter 510-935-5845
    The Salted Slug Strange 408-454-9368
    Burn This Flag Zardoz 408-363-9766
    realitycheck Poindexter Fortran 510-527-1662
    Lies Unlimited Mick Freen 415-583-4102
    Tomorrow's 0rder of Magnitude Finger_Man 415-961-9315
    My Dog Bit Jesus Suzanne D'Fault 510-658-8078
    New Dork Sublime Demented Pimiento 415-566-0126

    Specializing in conversations, obscure information, high explosives,
    arcane knowledge, political extremism, diverse sexuality,
    insane speculation, and wild rumours. ALL-TEXT BBS SYSTEMS.

    Full access for first-time callers. We don't want to know who you are,
    where you live, or what your phone number is. We are not Big Brother.

    "Raw Data for Raw Nerves"

    X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X

    Denise
    telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
    http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23