Ode to the Demiurge?

With my iPod on shuffle today I stumbled over a song which took me by surprise from my past. Mid '90's. The group with the iconic name of STP, not to be confused with the motor oil.

The lyrics to this particular song are quite striking. Pay careful attention to the description of the being and the muffled shift to Bible verses at the end. Kinda makes me cringe. I honestly can't think of anyone else who has created such a bold piece of work about the demiurge's doings.

Stone Temple Pilots -- "Naked Sunday"
(There's a few seconds delay at the beginning for the lower instrumentals and I haven't found a real video that was made for the song by the band. Not sure if it even exists.)

You're the fuel to the fire
You're the weapons of war
You're the irony of justice
And the father of law

I've been waiting for awhile to meet you
For the chance to shake your hand
To give you thanks for all the suffering you command
And when all is over and we return to dust
Who will be my judge and which one do I trust

You're the champion of sorrow
You're the love and the pain
You're the fighter of evil
Yet you're one in the same

I've been waiting for awhile to meet you
For the chance to shake your hand
To give you thanks for all the suffering you command
And when all is over and we return to dust
Who will be my judge and which one do I trust?

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
Turn the other cheek aside
We're all god's children, the giver of life
Alone, we will survive.

Grasping and Non-Grasping(Detachment)

Along with the concept of ahimsa(to not harm a living thing either in action or words) another Buddhist concept I regularly talk to my two children about is upadana. This is a complex concept which, while difficult to talk to adults about, is ridiculously easy to talk to children about. Their minds are capable of seeing clearly whereas adults have too many materialistic hangups in the way.

Let's dig deeper and see why this may be.

Upādāna: Sanskrit for"clinging," "attachment" or "grasping", although the literal meaning is "fuel."^[1] Upādāna and tṛṣṇā (Skt.; Pali: taṇhā) are seen as the two primary causes of suffering. The cessation of clinging leads to Nirvana.^[2]

There are four main "clinging types" talked about in Buddhist and Hindu texts.

1. The craving of worldly things/sensations
2. completely black or white world views and view of the self
3. clinging to rites and rituals as if rites alone could lead directly to liberation
4. and maintaining a self-doctrine that one has a permanent "self" to lose when death occurs

Although children are professional players(this is literally their JOB as part of exploration) they have a much more wobbly sense of balance. Why do you think this is? This is because they are not 'firmly in their skin' so to speak. It is only through later adolescence and then young adulthood when the soul become so firmly attached to the physical form they have grown accustomed to. Naturally, this leads to clingy behavior if this form is threatened. Adults are more cautious than children when protecting this form(and material possessions seen to have worth).

In keeping a doctrine or world-view of either all "This" or all "That" we make the mistake of filling the mold of stereotypes. Fundamentalism at its finest. There is no growth through this skewed perspective. The world is not completely one way or the other and neither is our soul or connection to the divine. Without change there is stagnation. With stagnation comes spiritual death. Then one must ask themselves: what is the purpose of life if not to grow and learn? If you don't want to learn and grow why are you still hanging around? And if you're so sure of everything then this last question still applies. What is there left for you to do if not learn?

Clinging to rites and rituals is a dangerous form of upadana in that it also does not allow us to grow beyond our current perspective. This grasping behavior is the comfort of routine while in other ways it is the basis of wanting to get something far before you are ready for it. The Biblical theme of "paying to get into heaven" falls into this concept. Pushing our religious boundaries and not becoming stagnant is essential. If we are not child-like and choose instead to cling to our rituals then we are in danger of losing that vibrant connection to the divine. It becomes dull when not used in new ways on a regular basis.

A few months ago I wrote a blog post about a whisper in my ear from Pleroma. It was, quote, "you do not have a self." It is one thing to teach about non-grasping behavior in the material world and quite another to dissolve this seemingly hardwired idea in our brain that each of us is separate and therefore we have cause to do harm to one another any way we wish. If it's not hurting us then who cares, right? As long as I get what I need or want then that's all that matters.

Rising above this greed of self-identity is very difficult. In gnosis, this is the equivalent of visualizing the pattern of cloth or material which makes up Pleroma and therefore, us. We are all connected as one mind. Separate physical bodies but all connected with spirit. We think we are separate only because of miscommunication and the distractions of the material world. We're so caught up in these distractions that with each of us trying to grab a certain piece of something we think that there's not going to be enough for everyone so there must be a race to get there first.

By seeing the divine connection we share with one another it becomes unthinkable that we would wish to harm 'our self.'

Detachment is the opposite of grasping.
Nekkhamma in contrast to upādāna.

Nekkhamma is a tricky concept in relation to gnosis and this bears much further discussion.


"...From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

— from "Clinging" (Upadana Sutta SN 12.52)

I think that we have to be careful, very careful, about what we become detached from. For such a lofty goal of attaining gnosis and therefore a more complete communion with Pleroma, must we detach from the world completely? What if we choose to detach from our family, friends, and neighbors? What would the purpose be? What if we sit in mute contemplation for the rest of our days?

Dawkins and the "Banana Man"

*~~~*~~~Note~~~*~~~ *

I am posting this article fairly soon after the last. Make sure you scroll down to read the last post as it ties in with this one.

One can see an awful lot of militant atheism on YouTube. Thankfully, there are a handful of people out there who aren't afraid to jump into the fight. Both sides are hardly even in number, what with the DMCA's getting slapped on people left and right. It's cowardly, for sure. If you can't think of a good counterargument- scream copyright violation, right?!

This video of Dawkins is a puzzling piece of work. I mean, what exactly is a "cousin" if not an ancestor, anyway? A cousin is still part of the family construct, is it not? Last I checked it was. So is he saying that these "cousins" all-- every single one of them!! -- suddenly up and disappeared in EVERY genetic way and there is no hope of ever reconstructing what their DNA may look like?!! That does not make any kind of logical sense. Why would an entire branch of a family DNA sequence disappear? Under what circumstances could/would this occur? (maybe GOD?!! No, I'm not giving this idea serious consideration. Just giving you an idea of the dead ends Dawkins doesn't like to think about.)

The man seems to tremble at being called on to give an example of the very hypothesis he shouts so loudly about and tries to convince us of. But then again, this flaky interview didn't garner him any book sales so.... I suppose this only makes him a propagandist. And a bad one at that.

Oh, and here's a point to ask your friendly neighborhood biologist: aren't alligators and crocodiles considered "cousins" of dinosaurs? These two beasts are modern and yet haven't changed much since the last evolutionary era. And what about the mighty cockroach?!! In all it's shapes and sizes over the millennia surely the cockroach can be studied as one of those amazing scavengers(like crocodiles!) which has the genetic heartiness to trace its origins back to whatever evolutionary era scientists might like to examine.

But in Dawkins' mind, that just doesn't work. We can't study something from the past, says he. We have to look at what we have NOW in front of us to give us the answer about if there is a God. *shakes head* Man, you can't have it both ways. You scream that science will prove there is no god and then proceed to preach exactly what ways we shouldn't use science to find answers. Confused much? I know I am. I keep hoping for a straight answer from this guy but I haven't heard one from him yet.

And this next video is just an example of the way Dawkins wiggles out of debating. Yes, Kirk Cameron is strange little puppet. Yes, the debate would have been excruciating and this is probably why Kirk dropped out. But it appears as though Dawkins would rather be a stand up comic than a serious scientist. I just can't take anyone seriously when they're so busy slapping names on their opponents like, "banana man." Honestly, it just makes me hungry. Or want to go to the zoo. Not listen to a supposed "serious scientist" blather on and on about bananas and monkeys.

Pay careful attention to the expression on his face and the nervous twitch of his hands. He's a bit unsure of himself and how his stand up act will be received. I imagine this to be about the same level of nervousness a white man showed the first time using the term "African American" instead of the more profane descriptive used in the past to denote color or race.

So you have to ask yourself- what do militant atheists think of everyone else who does not share in their disbelief?

On Atheism

When I first wrote the review on Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" a little more than a week ago I had no idea the pain I would feel so soon afterward concerning atheism. I feel like I have had my heart literally ripped out of my chest. Why? Because I have now had to revise my theory concerning atheism in regards to walking a path toward gnosis.

For some time now I've been following an atheist blogger by the pseudonym of Dromedary Hump(Dromedary is a breed of camel, btw) who owns the Atheist Camel blog. Bart(his real name), also wrote a book called The Atheist Camel Chronicles. It's very well received on Amazon.

Bart, who more fondly goes by the nickname "Hump" on his blog produces at least four articles a month; each article has always been a well organized attack on literalist religion. Which, as a gnostic, I'm pretty accepting of to a certain extent. Pointing out and learning from the irrational behavior and idiosyncrasies of literalists is important in growth toward gnosis. If you can't figure out where you've been then how can you identify where you want to go? Identifying those speed bumps is essential.

In Hump's blog articles I have always tried to nudge my two-cents in wherever I can as long as the topic allowed me to point out the differences between literalist and non-literalist religions. He has been shocked at times at how much I agree with him on certain topics. He has educated me on atheism and so all in all I have to say that it was a copacetic relationship up until now. Mutual teaching and learning going on between us and mutual respect concerning our difference of opinion on whether or not there is a divine presence in the universe worth revering. Until last week.

There has always been a certain ruthlessness and volatility in Hump's friend, NewEnglandBob's posted comments. This proved to be an excellent way to watch, in action, two atheists who don't necessarily agree with one another one hundred percent of the time. I considered Hump to be the more moderate atheist and NEBob to the angry militant variety-- until something snapped in Hump's head sometime last week and that last shred of sanity which was holding him back from becoming a full fledged pissed off militant atheist- left the building. It is gone. Au revoir. Never to be seen again, I fear.

The blog post titled "Those Damnable New Atheists!" was the sad train wreck which broke my heart.

During my original reading of the post I was nodding my head and agreeing with Hump right up until the last paragraph of: "But careful examination of the contributions of theists in real world terms: i.e. science and medicine by notible theists like Gregor Mendel, Christian Barnard, Jonas Salk, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon and other personages of faith were made INSPITE of their theistic superstition, not BECAUSE of it. Had they not extended themselves beyond the precepts of their religious indoctrination and the ignorant falsehoods of scripture, they’d have contributed nothing."

A red flag went up in my mind at his presumption of the brainlessness of all theists. I wrote:

Angel said...

Quote: "INSPITE of their theistic superstition, not BECAUSE of it. Had they not extended themselves beyond the precepts of their religious indoctrination and the ignorant falsehoods of scripture, they’d have contributed nothing."

Sorry, Hump, but I have to disagree with you on that part. Yes, 75% of literalist theists claw at real science like kicking and screaming jackals with nothing else to do. HOWEVER, there is something to be said about the wonderful spark of intuitive reasoning which comes from the All(Not Yahweh-remember?). This isn't in spite of anything. If the person is not listening they wont hear a damn thing and just blithely go on their merry way. But if they ARE listening then real progress can be made in all areas of science a person is working in.

Even some gnostics get deaf from time to time, because of all the material responsibilities of their lives. So we're not completely immune to this.

Granted, our republic has been twisted now to the opposite side of the spectrum, but I wonder what would have happened if Plato had not been so inspired to write on the gnostic principles he did, among other things....

Be careful who you point your finger at. Not all theists are brainless because not all theists are literalists.

A theist with the pseudonym of DSJulian began an email war with Hump and posted their dialogue in the blog post's comment area. It was vicious. I could only watch in horror as Hump and NEBob proved that atheists are just as guilty of lacking rationality and good judgment as literalists. There were gross errors in historical information being bandied about and then misinterpreted to heap more ignorance on top of everything. Like I said- train wreck.

In the end, I said good-bye. I just couldn't watch any longer. It was obvious nobody was grasping the differences between literalist and non-literalist religion. I tried, I really did. But I failed in making these distinctions clear the past few months.

"Congratulations, Hump. You have now graduated to being a militant atheist in my book.

Apres tu, Julian.

I'll let myself(and my reasoning and rational mind) out; no need to show me the door."

Hump replied:

Angel, Hmmm.. I have always been a militant atheist. Ithought you understood that.

I hate to see you go. But I will not attribute to a god, a supernatural force, or a thinking senitinel being anything having to do with life, the universe, creation etal; nor will I allow disinofrmation to go unchallenged.

It was such a door-slam-in-the-face that I didn't reply. But DSJulian did after a while. He said,

"Angel, like me, thought you were a rational, reasonable person. Obviously you are not because once you are pressed with the facts, you have to resort to name calling. And as the Hump-God gets challenged, you have to respond by getting angry and accusing others of being angry. In the meantime your anger is being clearly demonstrated by your increasingly frequent spelling and other errors. You are becoming more and more like the God you say you reject, except you don't have the power to create anything..."

The melodrama went on for a total of sixty comments before finally dying down. Hump began deleting all of DSJulian's comments around post number forty-five or so.

In the end, I have revised my theory concerning atheism on being a possible stepping stone toward gnosis. Before this whole blogstorm I thought that any atheist was capable of using their rational rejection of literalism as a catapult toward gnosis when they were ready. I stand corrected. Now I have to say that I believe only 25% moderate/calm atheists stand a chance of gnosis and under 5% of the militant atheists will ever come around. They can't get rid of their hate long enough to see through, around, or under the blindfold which is holding them captive.

Debating with atheists isn't useless or pointless. I mean, this is a person's soul we're talking about here! It's important stuff! But with what I've found so far debating with atheists is tedious and more often than not, fruitless.

Coincidentally, I picked up the book "The Dawkins Delusion?" from the library a day or so prior to this blogstorm. Once my temper settled I dug into it and attempted to make some sense out of what had happened. Finally, I would be able to read a theist's deconstruction of Dawkins's argument against God!

For the most part I was disappointed. "The Dawkins Delusion?" was a fairly superficial engagement of the numerous arguments Dawkins proposed, however it did make one valid point: you cannot keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again with nothing new to contribute if you are a SCIENTIST and want to be taken seriously as a SCIENTIST. And no, making up new theories of "memes" and "God viruses" aren't real science. That requires lab work.

Believing in evolution does not make me a disingenuous theist, contrary to what Dawkins would have me and everyone else believe. I don't feel disingenuous. I feel pretty darn confident, actually! It is possible to be a theist and believe in the good work of science. So why does Dawkins lump all theists into the same creationist camp??? Because otherwise he'd have to admit that there is a gray area and that not all theists are "mentally deficient!" And Dawkins can't stand gray. It's either his way or nothing.

A scientist taking the pulpit seems disingenuous to me.

And on the real science front..... {This news video} about British scientists solving the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" mystery says something quite remarkable about our quest for answers. With every answer we receive from science it appears that our final answer concerning divinity is a long way off. We need to be patient and in the meantime not tear each other apart.

From how I look at the conclusion to this test it was a stalemate. The chicken could have dropped from the sky or it could have evolved. It's really kinda ironic, when you think about it! The poor creationists and evolutionist are looking at each other like, "well... crap. Now what do we do?!!"

Long story short, folks, either the divine is proven to exist or not. Science appears to be able to assist with the ongoing debate, however it seem quite hilarious to me that so far both sides have been slamming their heads into walls with the conclusion of their tests. The results are conclusive but... not. Answering one question only leads to ten more. Such is life.

Compassion and Free Will

In gnosis, the Good God wants us to have maximum personal freedom for growth and exploration. This means the ability to make mistakes as well as do good deed to learn from.

But where do the boundaries for personal freedom lie in a realistic sense today? How can we safely get there without our world imploding in hatred from one end of the political/socio/economic spectrum or the other?

On Friday I said the next post I put up would detail why I'm so bummed lately. Still working on it. But these thoughts on compassion and free will are the end result of where I'm at after three days of careful consideration.

I don't think there is an answer and it pains me.

Halo

Heard this song the day before yesterday on my radio in the car and since then Pleroma's been singing it with me-- even with the heartbreak I've been dealing with. That'll be my next post once I get my thoughts together.

Pleroma's saying, "Dance with me, girl!!!!" and apparently this is our song for the week. I'll admit, it's awesome. It's intimate. It makes me feel like I have wings.



Remember those walls I built
Well baby they're tumbling down
They didn't even put up a fight
They didn't even make a sound.

I found a way to let you in
But I never really had a doubt
Standing in the light of your halo
I've got my angel now.

Chorus:

It's like I've been awakened
Every rule I had you breaking
It's the risk that I'm taking
I'm never gonna shut you out!

Everywhere I'm looking now
I'm surrounded by your embrace
Baby I can see your halo
You know you're my saving grace
You're everything I need and more
It's written all over your face
Baby I can feel your halo
I pray it wont fade away.

Halo halo halo halo halo
Halo halo halo halo

It hit me like a ray of sun
Burning through my darkest night
You're the only one that I want
You got me addicted to your light

I swore I'd never fall again
But this don't even feel like falling
Gravity can't forget
To pull me back to the ground again.

Chorus

Chorus

Violence and Death from a Gnostic's Perspective

The following video is from Steve, from truebluehealer.com, talking about what you will NOT find in gnosis. This is a must watch video for those concerned with the "pagan" stamp placed on gnosticism by literalist churches(i.e. Vatican), when in fact the opposite is true: gnosis is the ultimate and most intimate relationship with the divine. No priests or Hail Mary's required. Gnosis is for everyone!!!

After you are finished watching the vid continue reading down below. If you don't watch the vid then what I write next may not make much sense.

If you look at gnosticism's history you will see this is very true. The All/Pleroma does not protect us with a Holy Umbrella. Look at the Cathars and all the other gnostic communities through the ages for proof. We are still expected to learn how to do things on our own in the physical world and to use our common sense and good judgment. We do not get a free Get Out of Experiencing Physical Death card by default of being gnostic.

Steve touched on the broad topic when he mentioned violence and death. I wanted to go in deeper with this and talk about death from the All's perspective.

The past months have shown me a new perspective on the topic of death and it's not necessarily a warm and fluffy one. Not impersonal. Hardly that!! Just... a different way to look at Pleroma's 'agenda' so to speak.

Last episode of Saving Grace. Anyone see it? I did. And the last few minutes of the episode clearly shows what I have difficulty putting into words. I'll describe the scenes instead and go from there.

Grace is given two options: go look for and stop a Very Bad Demon/Entity which is personified evil and chaos or to look the other way and play it safe. She chooses the first route. Earl, Grace's angel, is here and there and everywhere, setting things in motion to go according to God's plan dependent upon what Grace decides to do.

Meanwhile, Grace's best friend goes to a woman named Neely who also shares Earl as an angel(long back story there). Grace's friend asks Neely to call Earl and give him a message-- "Tell me if Grace is going to be ok." A physical sign given a few hours later points toward Earl giving an affirmative response. Yes, Grace is going to be ok.

Grace died. She flicked a lit lighter onto a few tons of fertilizer and went boom, thereby taking out the bad entity with her.

Did Grace have a choice? Was Heaven pushing her? Was Grace cornered like a whipped dog?

Yes, Grace always had a choice. Heaven nudged her but always gave her the option to say no and go in another direction. Free will. And no, Grace was frightened at times of the magnitude of what lay before her but she was never cowed and too terrified to put one foot in front of the other to search for what God ultimately wanted to show her and teach her about herself. Granted, she did have her tantrums. We all do when faced with monumental decisions and the unknown. But she made her choice and she stood her ground.

And she died. So was Grace "ok"?

Grace's best friend felt betrayed by Earl and by default, God. Earl said Grace was going to be ok.

Steve: "you cannot be excessively guided or you no longer have free will."

Exactly.

And "gnostics do get run over by buses."

Darn!

And we're also not going to "get winning lottery numbers." Steve, you ruined my plans!! I was going to retire at thirty-five in the Bahamas. *sob*

So where does that leave us? Why would the All not save us with a Golden Parachute or Holy Umbrella of protection? We're special, right?! We're GNOSTIC!

...... back up there. Delete that "s" word. It has no place in gnosis. Absolutely none. We are all unique individuals with individual paths... and here's the kicker- our paths intersect with millions of other intersecting paths of other individuals. We're all special in the All's eyes. We are all worthy of the same amount of care and attention and he is fully capable of giving it.

So what is the deal with this "everything is going to be ok" type line that gnostics know and feel to be true? And where does fire and brimstone come into this? The answer is that it doesn't. Hell is a human creation whereas heaven is being reunited with the body and fabric of the All. Our existence is simply an evolution of our soul. Learning, thinking, and discovering how much love we can feel for someone even as they are making a mistake. Being able to love is key.

Why would the All tell us(and even convey to us through "angels") that everything is going to be ok? More simply put- divinity runs on a very different clock than humanity. In the long run the All is more worried about the nature and growth of your soul than more immediate concerns that you may have. A non-functioning car does not always merit heavenly intervention!! It's not that he doesn't care. Because he does. But ultimately, everything will be "ok" if you died at that very moment, with or without your car working again so try not to take it personally. The All is concerned with your soul.

He wants to show you, teach you, listen to you, and be your most intimate companion. But that does not mean he will protect you from disease or accident. Even murder. Because remember- our lives intersect millions of other people's lives and this includes their bad decisions. Not just the good. We can't always have the good.

This realization that everything truly WILL be ok makes it much harder to be terrified of physical death.

Nonviolentpeaceforce.org

www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/

This organization is now listed on the Human Rights Sites and Organizations section on the blog.

The site states:

Our Mission

The mission of Nonviolent Peaceforce is to build a large-scale trained, international civilian nonviolent peaceforce. Nonviolent Peaceforce is sent to conflict areas to prevent death and destruction and protect human rights, thus creating the space for local groups to enter into dialogue and to seek peaceful resolution to local conflicts.

Our Vision

We envision a world in which large-scale unarmed civilian peacekeeping using proven nonviolent strategies is recognized as a viable alternative in preventing, addressing, and mitigating violent conflicts worldwide. Our primary strategy for achieving this vision is the creation of space to foster dialogue.

Our Work

We most often respond to invitations by credible local organizations committed to nonviolent solutions. Once invited, we meet key players, including commanders from opposing sides, local police, religious, business, and civil society leaders. We live and work in communities within conflict zones alongside local people.

When violence erupts, civilians under threat often contact us. They know and trust us. We have been living among them. Visibly nonpartisan and unarmed, we arrive in NP uniforms, with NP vehicles, letting our presence be known.

We build the confidence and safety of civilians deeply affected by conflict so they can access available structures and mechanisms for addressing problems and grievances.

Our activities have ranged from entering active conflict zones to remove civilians in the crossfire to providing opposing factions a safe space to negotiate. Other activities include serving as a communication link between warring factions, securing safe temporary housing for civilians displaced by war, providing violence prevention measures during elections and negotiating the return of kidnapped family members.

Book Review

The God Delusion
By: Richard Dawkins

As much as I loathed picking this book up after already seeing Dawkins argument shredded by other people, I decided that I at least had to further educate myself on exactly what I was up against when talking to the man's disciples.

I discovered something not too terribly surprising from a gnostic stance- I agreed with him the majority of the time.

Those of you who are semi-gnostic or semi-literalist theist may gasp and say, "oh my gosh, but why?!! He's an atheist. He is the antithesis of what I believe in!" Au contraire, my friends. Atheists are not the boogieman they are made out to be(EXCLUDING the militant atheist type! They are truly scary.). In terms of the evolution of gnosis atheists are, in fact, potential infant gnostics. Tabula rasa of an adult nature. A kind of resolve the adult makes to revert back to being blank slates before the world attempted to indoctrinate them. The adult states: I see no reason to believe therefore I do not.

The God Delusion has been used as a sort of vindicating "guidebook" for atheists to explain their decision. With as much as atheists are hated(therefore rarely elected into office), spit upon, and used as pulpit scapegoats for the ills of the world, I think that the book deserves a bit more care and examination. Dawkins' job was hardly and easy one. He has well over two thousand years of religion to talk about in regards to Why He Doesn't Agree With It. It's not enough to point at a religion and say, "It promotes hatred therefore I refuse to believe in it." We have to dig deeper than that.

In the preface, Dawkins tells a short story about his wife's childhood education. She was so miserable, he said, that she wished she could leave. Years later when she told her parents about this they exclaimed, "But darling, why didn't you tell us?" The wife's reply was, "Because I didn't know that I could."

I believe this one sentence lays the foundation for exactly what atheists use as fuel. They have discovered they do have a choice and this propels them forward to question everything and everyone. In a gnostic perspective- isn't this exactly what the Good God wants us to do?!! Absolutely! To not question is to be a blank faced sheep, led to the slaughter by whoever holds our leash. This is the very reason why I state atheists are potential infant gnostics. They have turned their back on literalism as the world has promoted it and this is a major stepping stone toward (potential)spiritual growth. Some never do grow and that is their choice.

"I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."

Dawkins' attack of Jehovah, Allah, and other literalist deities is typical. He calls them misogynists, angry murderers, and he can in no way, shape, or form condone revering such deities without proof of their existence. The problem with his attempt at disproving God's existence is that he falls short. His argument is that he wants God to walk up and shake his hand and since He hasn't done so then obviously He doesn't exist. This is a cop out to real discourse on the nature of the soul and the divine. He is begging for literalism and pouts when he doesn't get it.

He is attacking literalism only because he knows of no other religion or concept(like gnosis). Now, he does acknowledge that Buddhism and Confucianism and a few others are "ethical systems or philosophies of life," but he does not recognize them as also being atheist. He does not look further within them to explore the solid cornerstone of gnosis at their core. Since he dismisses eastern 'ethical systems and philosophies' he completely misses the point- that he is in fact only pointing out one branch of religion he does not believe in: literalism. But by not acknowledging and researching non-literalist religions he is not only doing himself a disservice but atheists everywhere.

This book is a 350+ page rant against literalism. And yet a literal handshake is the only thing which would appease him.

Since a literalist's endgame is pointing at their holy book and exclaiming in a loud voice that all the answers are within and if you don't believe it then you are going to a Very Hot Place after death then you can see why Dawkins would react with the arguments he does. He claims to be an empiricist who needs proof. I say that he is a hopeful agnostic as opposed to pure atheist. The summary of the book is a rather passionate plea for God to show Himself either in intuition or science and math:

"... Could we, by training and practice, emancipate ourselves from Middle World, tear off our black burka, and achieve some sort of intuitive- as well as just mathematical- understanding of the very small, the very large, and the very fast? I genuinely don't know the answer, but I am thrilled to be alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits."

The Literal Truth

I don't agree with the last 30 seconds but it's still funnier than heck from an open-minded gnostic perspective. The last round is especially funny because of the sheer number of ways the quotes contradict themselves.