PART ONE

Atheism one step at a time

Why people believe in God - Clinging to beliefs - Intolerance - The Mountaintop - Compassion

• SUFFERING ABOUNDS.1
• A person's behavior is determined by emanations from their center of selfishness.2
• The baseline of selfishness--that which people want MORE THAN ANYTHING--is freedom from suffering.
• There exists an INNATE IMPULSE TO EVOLVE. This impulse exists in the same unconscious way that the impulse exists for injured tissue to mend. Consciously, the impulse to evolve is driven by a person's fundamental desire to avoid suffering and be free of ignorance (be happy).
• The desires to avoid suffering and be free of ignorance are the IMPETUSES for people to embrace a TRANSCENDENT BELIEF (religious faith, philosophy, attitude/values) that, it is hoped, will help assuage life's vexations and shine light on the way forward.
• People tend to CLING to their beliefs with the ferocity of a wild animal clinging to its kill. (Depending on what is being clung to and why, clinging is OK, but when clinging mainly serves to protect an insecure ego, dismisses reason and shared common experience and excites angry intolerance of contrary beliefs, suffering is perpetuated.) Clinging tenaciously to a flawed plan or a misguided belief can kill.
• INTOLERANCE, a major source of suffering, results from failing to understand and profoundly appreciate: > the RELATIVITY OF BELIEFS(relative to cultural and personal experience); > OUTPUT=INPUT, i.e., the output of any moment is a PERFECT EXPRESSION of all input to that moment;3 > all paths of hoped-for redemption and insight traveled, sooner or later, directly or indirectly, lead to THE MOUNTAINTOP (peace of mind/wisdom/compassion).
• Though all paths lead to The Mountaintop, some paths are more direct and less anguishing than others. Some paths may lead to a DEAD-END, or into darkness, away from The Mountaintop. Traveling these paths ultimately will not satisfy; in time, experience will teach that another path should be sought. Through TRIAL AND ERROR, a more rewarding direction will be found. In this way, all paths are evolutionary, leading to The Mountaintop. Empathy and COMPASSION for fellow travelers is the natural, reasoned response this understanding engenders.

FOOTNOTES

1 SUFFERING ABOUNDS

Broadly, suffering is having a physiological or psychological need denied or unfulfilled that, in turn, causes physical or emotional pain. Like any quality of life, suffering can be mildly, moderately or severely manifested. (For a schema of human needs, see Maslow's hierarchy of needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.)

Suffering can be further considered to be of two types: inherent and unnecessary.

Inherent suffering is part of the matrix of life. The pain of disease, injury, loss of loved ones are examples. The best a person can hope for regarding inherent suffering is enduring it with as much equanimity as possible. (Key: ACCEPTANCE of that which is.)

Unnecessary suffering is of the kind that can be obviated. The sufferings that accompany hate, egocentricity or insatiable appetites are examples.

2 SELFISHNESS

Sacrificing self-interest for a greater good, the selfless person is the model of virtue. The selfish person, reflexly consuming without regard to others, is the antithesis of virtue.

(By the very nature of its use of symbols to represent reality, language imposes upon the user an abstracted default view of reality. By recognizing this default view and keeping the functional edge of language sharp by the careful use of words, a person can control language and not be controlled by it.)

Like any subjective judgment made, labeling oneself or another as either selfless or selfish puts into play two potential obstacles to an understanding of the true nature of self/others.

One: Pinning a subjectively-based label on a person lulls the lazy thinker into believing that the definition of the label fully defines the person so labeled and possibilities in opposition to the label don't exist. Such an emphatic either/or, all-or-nothing belief is mistaken. In the yin-yang view of reality, no person is one way or the other all the time. The "thrifty" person, at least occasionally, is "wasteful." The "selfless" person, upon close examination, is sometimes "selfish."

Two: If selfishness is defined objectively (not subjectively from a behavioral/moral point of view), then all people are selfish all the time.

Objectively, selfishness means behavior that is motivated by self-interest.

Analyzing any bit of behavior reveals that what "sparks" the behavior is self-interest. Either the behavior is motivated by the survival instinct, or is driven by an ambition to satisfy a personal desire or vision unrelated to primal survival needs.

Any behavior that is aimed at providing food and protection from the elements is a matter of survival and constitutes the framework of human activity.

A revealing example of behavior that is triggered by an impulse to satisfy a personal desire or vision unrelated to the survival instinct is the "selfless" person lending a helping hand. The hand would not be extended unless doing so, first and foremost, satisfied a desire or vision within. Acting selflessly satisfies ME, the consequence of which is a benefit to others.

Though the "selfless" person is moved to act from a selfish center, their actions, nevertheless, are to be lauded. Also to be recognized and appreciated is the existential value in knowing that the map is not reality; that a person is always more than the sum of affixed labels.

3 OUPUT=INPUT

In a world where the human condition often seems confused and cruel, the quest for clarity and confidence through self-knowledge--Who am I? What's my purpose? What are my unique talents and shortcomings? What do I have in common with all others?--becomes an imperative for those not content with faith-based answers decreed by various religions and other authorities.

Superficially, a person has many identities defined by ethnicity, occupation, passions, ownership of things, point of view, etc. Though superficial identities are, by definition, relatively "shallow," implying triviality or hollowness, they have pragmatic--if not passionate--meaning, serving as chapter titles to a person's unique, unfolding narrative.

Beyond the superficial, though, are other identities unearthed if a person digs deeper and reflects upon their emotional reality and the nature of their relationship with self and others. Existing in this core space is a person's existential/spiritual nature, there agitating to be recognized and animated. No authority exists in this space but the self, alone, witnessing the self.

Unlike superficial identities defined by differences, core identities are defined by those qualities people have in common:

> Superficially, every person is unique. I am unique.

> Fundamentally, every person is the same as, and equal to, all others. I am the same as, and equal to, all others.

> Objectively, all people are selfishly motivated. I am selfishly motivated. [See Footnote 2]

> No person chooses their place of birth, race or social condition into which they are born. Because choice is not involved in a person's place or condition of birth, I have no sane reason to exalt or disparage myself or others because of place or condition of birth (doing so can rightly be called insane).

> All people desire to be treated respectively. I desire to be treated respectively.

> Everything is in a constant state of change. I am not exactly the person I was a year ago, yesterday, or EXACTLY as I was a moment ago. (Who I have been does not absolutely determine who I will become. I have the power to alter habituated patterns; to change according to my imagination and determination.)

> Output=Input. I am perfect.

Except for one profound nuance, Output=Input is the equivalent of the computer-related equation "garbage in, garbage out." While GIGO objectively explains the reason for a computer's output, O=I objectively explains the reason for any manifestation of nature.

The reason: PROGRAMMING.

Though the rational basis of O=I is persuasive, it's meaning may appear to be purely academic, void of real-world value. This, however, is not the case. If embraced as true, O=I will create a sacred space within where forgiveness and compassion can reside.

The essential metaphysical conclusion of Output=Input is the breathtaking assertion that every person--indeed, every manifestation of nature--is perfect, without flaw. A ravaging storm, an angry outburst, the flight of a golf ball, an injury, murder, muddy shoes, a loving touch, everything -- perfect!

Regarding human behavior, if "perfect" means always behaving in an idealized moral and healthy manner, then, obviously, people are not perfect. Most people, every day, in some way, can be judged to fall short of idealized standards. This is the commonly understood SUBJECTIVE definition of perfection.

Perfection can be defined OBJECTIVELY--a meaning that is equally as valid as its subjective counterpart.

As perfection can be understood to objectively mean 4 (output) is a perfect expression of 2+2 (input), so too can perfection mean that any event happening at the PRESENT MOMENT (output) is a perfect expression of (=) all relevant past experience up to the instant of, but not including, the present-moment event.

Single out any plant--living or dead. That plant, whatever its present-moment condition (output) is a perfect expression of the totality of its experience (input). This experience includes its inherited qualities and its history of exposure to moisture, light, temperature, soil and all other known and unknown influences going back in time as far as it is possible to imagine. Given this input, that plant can be no other way.

What's true for a plant is true for a person (or anything else). A person's present-moment condition/behavior (output) = the totality of that person's experience from the moment of birth, while in the womb, and those inherited influences passed on through eons of history.

Objectively, the universe is unfolding perfectly.