I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that quite a few people who claim to believe in god really don't.

[skip fox]

And I don't mean the church-goer who goes more out of habit than faith. I mean those who tout their belief, especially those on the right.

If as children they were taught to believe in something they later came to realize was totally absurd. When they realized this, many (out of confusion) take a too aggressive stance on God's existence and nature (*the "Methinks thou dost protest too much" syndrome) AND would lead them to suspect, if not disbelieve all the other standards/values/ethics they were taught (especially as so many were predicated on what they realize is absurd). So they yell about these things while employing the moral relativism they claim to deplore, since they seem to lack all belief.

In limbo with vertigo we see them sneer at Christian values and social concern, making Christ into an ignorant and selfish sot like themselves.

Maybe we will culturally evolve beyond the need to have a cartoon father in the sky, before such "religions" kill us. (Not that there isn't a presence or cause for spiritually, but that there's just no Pappy Jesus with a beard and a big finger coming out of the clouds.)

[Warpy]

1. That's why people who are outside that perfect consensus of faith

are so deeply threatening to them. The terror of not believing is greater than the terror of a vengeful god sending them to hell since acknowledging disbelief also cuts them off from an important community.

I've always thought the most rabid proselytizers were likely the deepest doubters.

[kenny blankenship]

6. I think many of the most rabid proselytizers couldn't give a damn whether God exists or not

God is power.

Representing God is for them the quickest, most plausible path to a position of power over others. And they have to have it. They will say anything they need to say, believe anything they need to believe. And even believe that they really do believe it, whenever a little extra vehemence is required to push obstacles and difficult people out of their way. Doubt holds no interest for them since doubt is never a path to power.

[niceypoo]

8. If you can scare people they will give you power over them

They will also give you their money.

[DeSwiss]

19. "I've always thought the most rabid proselytizers were likely the deepest doubters."

"Extreme orthodoxy betrays by its very frenzy that the poison of skepticism has entered the soul of the church; for men insist most vehemently upon their certainties when their hold upon them has been shaken. Frantic orthodoxy is a method for obscuring doubt." ~ Reinhold Niebuhr

- This is the one thing that Niebuhr said upon which I agree.....

[patrick t. cakes]

2. deep down most people don't

IMO

[rrneck]

3. Not a few

confuse faith with brand loyalty and god with a product.

[WCGreen]

4. They are just cynical bastards that know god plays well out on the campaign trails...

[Bjorn Against]

5. Religion is often used to control people...

I am convinced that many if not most of the people who preach the loudest do not actually believe, but they know damn well that religion is a very effective way to push their agenda. If you can convince someone that they will burn in hell for an eternity if they do not believe what you believe you can control them very easily.

[Hannah Bell]

12. i'm convinced that religion has deliberately been so used throughout history.

as mind control, vote control, spy service, shock troops for capital.

e.g. the brown brothers & family (of prescott bush "brown brothers harriman" fame) were funding religion & missionaries big-time way back in the 1800s.

i'm beginning to think the mormons were a kind of covert op, too.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. I believe sound investment is the key to building long term wealth...

but that doesn't mean I invest at all (I don't).

Actions do not have to based on beleif nor must actions and beliefs be mutually inclusive.
Who are we to suppose what anyone actually believes?

[skip fox]

13. Curious humans. Tthat's who we are . . . tryning to figure things out,

quite aware of the possible presumption, yet unwilling to stop trying to figure things out.

[Arugula Latte]

9. Indeed.

I think deep down many suspect or know it's all a bunch of hooey, and they invest a lot of time and energy trying to convince themselves otherwise -- by lashing out at those who openly say what they are thinking. As Mark Twain said: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

[JitterbugPerfume]

10. I remember when I ceased to believe (years ago)

I was reading extensively on the subject, and was shocked to realise that I was indeed an Athiest.

[elocs]

11. It's also possible that not more than a few who claim don't, do. n/t

[skip fox]

14. Less likely, however.

[elocs]

20. Yet, still possible. The old no atheists in foxholes bit. n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

22. There ARE atheists in foxholes, sorry.

If you read up on it you would find out.

www.ffrf.org

[skip fox]

15. Myself, I'm a radical agnostic. I don't even know how to think about

framing the correct questions to ask. The usual ones seem so inadequate to the occasion and often preoccupied with the self and its continuation.

[harkadog]

16. I've gotten a sneaking suspicion that quite a few people claim to not believe in god really do.

[skip fox]

17. Again, very possible for young people (posing), but not nearly as likely

for those past their twenties.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Funny, I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the atheist-hating athIEsts in this forum are posers

Other "I am an atheist, but" phonies have outed themselves on DU and other internet forums.

They resemble their kissing cousins, the "I'm a liberal, but" morans.

[KonaKane]

18. And on the other side....

I was watching an episode of "This American Life" with Ira Glass (great series by the way, catch it if you can) and it was about a couple with the man being an atheist, and the wife who described herself as "an atheist who prays when I'm in trouble".

Interesting.

[rug]

21. I believe your suspicion about disbelief lacks evidence.

[dmallind]

24. Meslier was unique in all history? NT

[gcomeau]

37. I don't. See post 36. -nt

...

[ironbark]

23. To “evolve beyond the need to have a cartoon father in the sky”

James Fowler's stages of faith development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler's_stages_of_faith_development

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2219.htm

The Stages Of Spiritual Growth
By M. Scott Peck, M.D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck

http://www.factnet.org/Stages_Of_Spiritual_Growth.html

Peck postulates that there are four stages of human spiritual development <7><8>:
• Stage I is chaotic, disordered, and reckless. Very young children are in Stage I. They tend to defy and disobey, and are unwilling to accept a will greater than their own. They are extremely egoistic and lack empathy for others. Many criminals are people who have never grown out of Stage I.
• Stage II is the stage at which a person has blind faith in authority figures and sees the world as divided simply into good and evil, right and wrong, us and them. Once children learn to obey their parents and other authority figures, often out of fear or shame, they reach Stage II. Many so-called religious people are essentially Stage II people, in the sense that they have blind faith in God, and do not question His existence. With blind faith comes humility and a willingness to obey and serve. The majority of good, law-abiding citizens never move out of Stage II.
• Stage III is the stage of scientific skepticism and questioning. A Stage III person does not accept things on faith but only accepts them if convinced logically. Many people working in scientific and technological research are in Stage III. They often reject the existence of spiritual or supernatural forces since these are difficult to measure or prove scientifically. Those who do retain their spiritual beliefs move away from the simple, official doctrines of fundamentalism.
• Stage IV is the stage where an individual starts enjoying the mystery and beauty of nature and existence. While retaining skepticism, he starts perceiving grand patterns in nature and develops a deeper understanding of good and evil, forgiveness and mercy, compassion and love. His religiousness and spirituality differ significantly from that of a Stage II person, in the sense that he does not accept things through blind faith or out of fear, but does so because of genuine belief, and he does not judge people harshly or seek to inflict punishment on them for their transgressions. This is the stage of loving others as yourself, losing your attachment to your ego, and forgiving your enemies. Stage IV people are labeled as Mystics.
Peck argues that while transitions from Stage I to Stage II are sharp, transitions from Stage III to Stage IV are gradual. Nonetheless, these changes are very noticeable and mark a significant difference in the personality of the individual.

Fowler's stages-
• Stage 0 – "Primal or Undifferentiated" faith (birth to 2 years), is characterized by an early learning of the safety of their environment (i.e. warm, safe and secure vs. hurt, neglect and abuse). If consistent nurturance is experienced, one will develop a sense of trust and safety about the universe and the divine. Conversely, negative experiences will cause one to develop distrust with the universe and the divine. Transition to the next stage begins with integration of thought and languages which facilitates the use of symbols in speech and play.

• Stage 1 – "Intuitive-Projective" faith (ages of three to seven), is characterized by the psyche's unprotected exposure to the Unconscious.
• Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), stage two persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic.
• Stage 3 – "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence) characterized by conformity
• Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties) a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for their beliefs and feelings.
• Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis) acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems
• Stage 6 – "Universalizing" faith, or what some might call "enlightenment".

[Nihil]

29. Interesting post - thanks!

That's given me something to read up while the next build is happening ...
:toast:

[raccoon]

25. Oh, I strongly agree, and I think it's both groups you mentioned.

(1)the church-goer who goes more out of habit than faith.

(2)those who tout their belief, especially those on the right.


I don't usually suspect the 2nd group in RL, but I think you're right. Sometimes I'm too trusting.

[trotsky]

26. I think you should be very careful about #2.

It's essentially the No True Scotsman fallacy, and opens the door to claim that anyone who does anything bad is a filthy non-believer.

[jeepnstein]

27. Lots of folks "do" Church.

They occupy a seat and expect to be fed the stuff. They're also the ones who often go off in misguided directions with doctrine that doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible. Laziness is a church killer. Taking someone's word for it is a church killer. Being a self-righteous fool is a church killer.

We preach constantly on this topic at my church. It's not a building, or an organization, or a political party, or a militia, or a government. A church is an assembly of believers who dedicate time to studying and applying the teachings of the New Testament.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

28. Social club. Conformity. Social pressure.

The thing to do on Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night prayer meetings.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Oh, bullshit.

They just believe in their version of their god.

Like every other christian.

[BolivarianHero]

32. Hmm...

Chances are if you gay bash from the pulpit in public and snort crystal meth off a male prostitute's cock in private, you're not a believer. :P

[beam me up scottie]

33. Why not?

Hypocrisy and christianity have been bedmates since the beginning.

[BolivarianHero]

34. I know that...

I would like to think that religious fundamentalists who violate the tenets of their religion are just snake oil salespeople who believe in no god as I do, but aren't willing to be honest about it either because they profit personally by deceiving others or because they're scared of ostracization if they're honest about their lack of believe in the crap they've spread around.

[beam me up scottie]

35. So all bad people are really closet atheists?

Anybody who violates any of the tenets of their religion is an atheist because only good and pure people can be christians?

Really?

[gcomeau]

36. You're only getting a suspicion?

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Does that strike you as unclear?

Yeah, me neither.

Now... if you actually thought those were the direct instructions of the all powerful creator of the universe who you would be answerable to for the rest of eternity for your conduct... would you ignore him?

Yeah, me neither.

So... how many people do YOU see who call themselves Christians going out and selling all their possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor?

People believe what they want to believe. They want to believe they're not going to die, so they cling to that one little detail. They want to believe it's easy to accomplish that so they put a WHOLE lot of emphasis on the "through faith" thing. But they sure as heck don't want to give up their big screen tv... so they pretend they never heard that part.

And if they ACTUALLY believed God existed, right down in their gut, and thought he was watching them right this second, they wouldn't be pulling that crap. It's all just an elaborate act of self delusion.

[darkstar3]

38. I always thought that verse was interesting.

I asked my pastor about it once, long ago, before I became a dirty heathen.

"Jesus says blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek, etc., and he even tells men to sell all their possessions and give everything to the poor. There's even a verse about how it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. Doesn't that mean that success is anti-Christian? Doesn't that mean that instead of going to college I should give everything I have to charity and preach to the masses?"

"Not at all, , not at all. What Jesus and the Bible are trying to say is that in order to be blessed by God, you must first give your entire life to him. Only when you give your life fully to God can he bless you with all the things he wants you to have. Those things could include a good job, a big house, and enough money to care for your parents when they get older. You never know what God has in store for you until you surrender to him."

"Where is that in my Bible, sir?"

"No one place. You have to read the Bible very carefully in order to discover such truths. Prayer and fasting help."

In retrospect, I should have known then that it was all rectal extraction...

[Jim__]

39. Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect ..."

The context:

16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

So, it doesn't seem like this is something required of Christians.

[darkstar3]

40. You sound a lot like the pastor in #38.

Just read it the RIGHT way, it'll all make sense then...

ETA: What is it about faith apologetics that makes you so want to defend and use them? Why is it that every post of yours I see is either defending an argument for faith or attempting to dismiss or destroy an argument against faith? Your consistent and frequent behavior doesn't mesh with your self-styled label...

[Jim__]

41. If you read more, you wouldn't find my posts difficult to understand.

For instance, I am currently reading, The Monstrosity of Christ, a debate between Slavoj Žižek and John Milbank. In the introduction to the book, Žižek is described as a militant atheist. Yet, in his argument, he references these (or similar) passages and discusses their interpretation under the Catholic Church, Luther, and maybe the eastern church (I can't remember for sure). It is not at all unusual for someone to be concerned about the accuracy of an argument rather than just whether or not the argument agrees in general with his opinion.

Actually, bad arguments made in the name of a particular case, make the overall case look weak. There are strong arguments. If people want to argue a case, they should make the effort to research and think things through

[darkstar3]

43. "It is not my sword, Mondego, but your past that disarmed you."

I understand your posts perfectly. What I take issue with is your pattern when compared to your claims. One does not mesh with the other.

I've searched the forum. Every post of yours I find is either in support of an argument for faith (and you tend to favor ontological and first-mover arguments) or detracting from an argument against faith (such as your constant support of Hart's inanity). I see no posts at all where you even hint at agreement with a single atheist or agnostic writer, except when those writers attempt to claim that science and religion can coexist. I've even watched you turn Neitzche's writings on their head.

You consistently come down on "new atheists" (a term they themselves never coined and I'm sure they think is a great joke), and you consistently find new material to post in this forum to support the idea that the so-called "new atheists" are wrong in every way, especially with regard to proper respect shown to believers.

In short, Jim, your incredibly predictable pattern makes no sense at all for someone who has repeatedly needed to remind us that they are agnostic. I do not intend to attack you, but I see only one explanation for your pattern in light of your claims: you are participating in a form of deception, either self- or mass-.

[Jim__]

45. If that's what you get from my posts, you don't understand them (never mind "perfectly")

In this case, I added context to a statement given in isolation. And, as specified, I've seen a quite simlar argument made by a rather well-known and respected atheist. An argument is either valid or invalid. An invalid argument doesn't necessatily lead to an invalid conclusion. But it does make the conclusion appear weaker than it may actually be.

[darkstar3]

46. Now there's an old defense.

What was that about weak arguments?

[trotsky]

61. Well, he also opposes vaccination, so take what you will from that. n/t

[Jim__]

62. No. I don't. Never said I did.

[gcomeau]

42. In other words...

When actually confronted with instructions on how to acheive perfection from the all knowing all powerful creator of life and the universe... the expected response from someone who actually really believes in and worships this entity as a supreme being is...

"Awww... do I HAVE to?"

Followed by ignoring the advice if the answer is "well... it's not strictly required..."

Seriously? That's the position you want to take?

[Jim__]

44. In other words, that's what it says - in context.

Funny, you omitted the clarifying context to print only the one line.

[gcomeau]

47. Dodging the question I see.

1. I never disputed that was what it said, so I really don't care if you want to spend the rest of your life telling me so.

2. If you'll notice, I INCLUDED the "If you want to be perfect" qualifier in the quote when I quoted it the first time you genius. Where exactly, did I at any time, say it was instruction for ANYTHING ELSE?

3. Care to answer the question? Or not? If you actually believed that those were the instructions for being perfect given by the all powerful all knowing creator of the universe whom you worshiped as a supreme being and believed you would be answerable to for how you lived your life for THE REST OF ETERNITY... are you seriously taking the position that the appropriate response is to say "Waaah... I don't wanna... do I really have to?"

Yes? Or no?

[Jim__]

48. The answer to the question is quite clear - it is not required behavior.

As to what you said, you also said:

People believe what they want to believe. They want to believe they're not going to die, so they cling to that one little detail. They want to believe it's easy to accomplish that so they put a WHOLE lot of emphasis on the "through faith" thing. But they sure as heck don't want to give up their big screen tv... so they pretend they never heard that part.

But, according to the statement, there is no need to give up the big screen tv, as the context makes quite clear.

[gcomeau]

49. Yes Mr. Perceptive, I KNOW it's not required behavior.

Now answer the question, which had not one damn thing to do with it being REQUIRED.

[Jim__]

50. First of all, I have answered the question.

And, the context makes it quite clear that it is not only not required, it's not expected.

Second of all, stop with the smart ass Mr Perceptive. Read through the subthread. I haven't called you names nor been rude to you. Try to keep the convesration at an adult level.

[darkstar3]

51. FULL context.

Once a religious leader asked Jesus this question: “Good Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

19“Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked him. “Only God is truly good. 20But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. Honor your father and mother.’c”

21The man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”

22When Jesus heard his answer, he said, “There is still one thing you haven’t done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

23But when the man heard this he became very sad, for he was very rich.

24When Jesus saw this,d he said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God! 25In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!”

26Those who heard this said, “Then who in the world can be saved?”

27He replied, “What is impossible for people is possible with God.”

28Peter said, “We’ve left our homes to follow you.”

29“Yes,” Jesus replied, “and I assure you that everyone who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, 30will be repaid many times over in this life, and will have eternal life in the world to come.”

Now read that full context and tell me again that it makes it clear that this is not required behavior. Seems required to me, especially with the eye of the needle thing.

[Jim__]

54. Your translation is quite different.

It doesn't have anything about the "if you would be perfect." The "There is still one thing you haven’t done," puts a completely different spin on it. I'm not sure why these translations are so different. Maybe it has to do with different Christian sects using different bibles. I don't know.

[darkstar3]

55. That was NLT, copyright 2007

Here's a few more:
http://bible.cc/luke/18-22.htm

The translation on each of them speaks of need. I don't see the word perfect in ANY of the translations listed on that page. Which translation are you using?

[Jim__]

56. You're takinng it out of Luke; I'm taking it out of Matthew.

Most of the translations have "perfect" in Matthew: http://bible.cc/matthew/19-21.htm

[darkstar3]

57. Same bible.

Or are you saying it contradicts itself?

[Jim__]

58. Luke and Matthew say different things.

Clearly. Before I said anything more, I would probably ask someone who knows about such things. I don't.

[darkstar3]

59. You post context, interpretation, and commentary on things you don't know about? n/t

[Jim__]

60. I posted the context from the isolated statement that was given at the head of this subthread.

It is extremely easy to comment on the one paragraph. I have never tried to interpret the whole of the gospels nor the whole of any particular gospel.

[darkstar3]

63. Splitting the hair mighty thin.

You provided interpretation for the paragraph you posted, and clearly attempted to stand behind that interpretation when it was challenged. Now suddenly you fall back on the "I don't know" defense when you are shown that such interpretation is questionable in light of the FULL context of the paragraph you posted.

Sounds familiar. You spend incredible amounts of time and energy arguing with people over first-movers and contingency vs. non-contingency elsewhere, and then when you are shown that not all models of the universe remotely require such things, you fall back on the "I don't know" defense.

Are you actually trying to have a discussion about any of these topics, or are you simply being sophistic in order to muddy the waters?

[Jim__]

64. What are you talking about?

In the first place, I posted the full paragraph. In the 2nd place, I have not backed off my comments on that paragraph. What I said was that I cannot interpret the meaning in Luke versus the meaning in Matthew.

You act like this is some unusual claim. The interpretation of a single paragraph is always easier than the interpretation of that paragraph in light of "other" works. Luke is a separate gospel. Asking for an interpretation of Luke and Matthew one in terms of what the other has written is a much deeper question. However, it doesn't change my interpretation of Matthew's paragraph in terms of what he wrote.

[darkstar3]

65. I'm talking about

the fact that you offer commentary and interpretation on things with which you yourself admit you are unfamiliar.

Furthermore, you stated that the context clearly indicated that selling your possessions is "not only not required, but not expected." Luke covers the exact same story, and therefore is part of that context you so desperately wished to provide, and that context completely invalidates your statement about clear requirements and expectations.

My point: If you weren't prepared to, and if you were uninterested in discussing the full context, why bother starting on it at all?

[Jim__]

66. I offered comment and commentary on one paragraph.

The paragraph is very clearly written. Luke's paragraph is written very differently. I didn't claim any biblical expertise; I commented on a paragraph that is written in quite clear English. I'm aware that it wasn't originally written in English; I'm aware that going back to original texts in other languages can garble the meaning. But, I didn't comment on anything but a simple English paragraph.

You seem to be making up some standard that if someone comments on one paragraph then they have to be an expert on everything that could ever be connected to that paragraph. IOW, you're talking nonsense.

[darkstar3]

67. Actually, what I'm saying is

that if you want to talk context, you should be prepared to talk about the entire context. Gcomeau picked a sentence and offered commentary, and then you claimed his sentence was taken out of context. You provided what you thought was the context and then you offered commentary on it. Then I provided fuller context, showing your claim of clarity to be on shaky ground, and THAT'S where you decided to claim "I don't know". At this point you refuse to admit you could have been wrong about the context and accuse me of forcing some sort of standard onto you.

It seems unfair that you can offer context and expect people to take your commentary as gospel truth on that context, and then refuse to discuss fuller context when it is offered, especially when that fuller context calls your conclusions into question. It seems like you're making up the rules as you go along. At one point you feel perfectly justified in interpreting bible passages, and at another point you claim that you don't know enough to do so. Those are two separate stances, and the line you draw between them seems perfectly arbitrary and designed to protect your previous claims from criticism.

[Jim__]

68. It is not possible to discuss *anything* in its entire context.

Get a grip.

I didn't refuse to discuss anything. I said I cannot discuss the various interpretations possible in the gospels of Luke and Matthew. People spend their entire lifetime studying that type of "context".

The context of a paragraph that contains a sentence is quite simple; and the "context" of paragraphs from different gospels written by different people is orders of magnitude more complex. Once again, you're just talking nonsense.

[darkstar3]

69. Once again,

you're drawing an arbitrary line in an attempt to shield your prior statements from criticism, and attacking me in the process. Remember, you were the one who first claimed that context was necessary here, and now you simply don't want to continue playing your own game.

I'm bored with your sophistry now, so I will say good day.

[gcomeau]

52. No you did not.

Because my question was if you were actually taking the position that you should expect people to just IGNORE the instructions of what they perceive to be the supreme being in the universe just because thay aren't phrased as absolute requirements. And you just keep doging around the issue by repeating over and over that it's not required... which I knew from post 1.

And, the context makes it quite clear that it is not only not required, it's not expected.

You were fine up until those last three words, which are pure fantasy and the context does nothing remotely of the kind. It very clearly IS expected of any follower of Jesus who wants to do more than the bare minimum required of them to save their own backsides.

Read through the subthread. I haven't called you names nor been rude to you.

Oh no... just implied I was dishonestly manipulating the material to alter it's meaning despite the fact that I directly quoted the information you claimed I was concealing. Not rude at all.

[spin]

53. I've learned to be extremely careful about those who tout their faith ...

they'll screw you faster than a person who has a criminal record.

Some just play religious to get you confidence and some think that since you are not religious, you deserve to get to get the raw end of a deal.

I have also met many people who were religious and were people of character who would go out of their way to help others in need. These people come from any faiths including Wicca or modern witchcraft. These people are VERY religious but not pushy. If you show some interest in their religion, they are glad to discuss it with you. They rarely try to force it down your throat and don't act pretentious.

If there is a creator, he is so far beyond our understanding as to be incomprehensible. He definitely doesn't look like this.