Also, when I was drowning and knew that I was definitely going to die right now, nothing in me at that moment reached out toward a god or anything beyond. The only thing I understood in that moment was:

DON’T FUCKING DIE!!!!!!!!!!

Im DYING to hear what you have time to say about Tim bring atheist

Okay so this is partly answering a longer ask I'm currently working on about each character's religion in canon, but let me just say this: DC Comics pretending like any hero is actually atheist cracks me up because it's an unbearably stupid concept in a world where mulitple pantheons of gods literally exist, the Spectre is God's Chosen, and Heaven and Hell are both tangible places multiple heroes have been. They might not believe in YOUR* god, but I find it extremely difficult to believe they don't believe in A god (or gods).

*generic you, encompassing any given religion and/or interpretation of the divine

I specifically want to inspect Fabian Nicieza's brain while he was writing Tim's Judgement on Gotham tie-in issue, because one of his best friends is Zeus's daughter, he semi-regularly works with Azrael, and he's good friends with Helena Bertinelli...but he doesn't believe in a god or understand the concept of Catholic Suffering?

My mom was a little religious, my dad not at all. So when she was killed--and my dad was left in a coma--I didn't have a strong foundation of faith to turn to. By the time my father was killed--then so many of my friends--all I had left to turn to was anger. It was easier than believing in a God who had let that happen. But anger sovled little and when the world was in crisis...I prayed. I heard only silence. So I confessed my sins...and realized I had none. How could someone who tried so hard to be good--did so much for so many people--be asked to endure so much? -Red Robin (2009) #22

Nicieza had not read the Book of Job in several years (if he ever had) when he wrote that issue, I'll tell you that much. If he had, we might be having a very different conversation about Tim Drake's religious belief system right now.

My larger beef with DC is that their writers continually impose their own incredibly limited, biased, and Western Christian-centric religious views onto characters in a universe where those views make no sense, and there's fewer characters that issue is more prominent with than Bruce Wayne and Tim Drake; while there's nuance to be found in the difference between belief and worship, writers often throw around atheism whenever they want to prove how "logical and intelligent" their character is. Except within the canonical constraints of the DCU...claiming to be atheist just makes them look dumb, because they're denying an objective fact of their universe.

Basically: you can be generally non-religious (or non-practicing) without being a non-believer, which is what most of the "atheists" in the DCU probably should be. Realistically, any hero a writer wants to make "atheist" should be saying something like "all these gods and divine forces in the universe and not one of them chose to help me when I was suffering? They don't deserve to be worshipped" instead of "I don't believe in god."

But that would require comic writers to actually engage in a nuanced understanding of religion (within a fantasy world or otherwise), which we know a solid 95% of them are incapable of doing. Thus: Tim Drake, "technical atheist" despite being besties with a literal demi-goddess, personally witnessing multiple resurrections, and having worked with the physical embodiment of the Abrahamic God's Wrath/Vengeance on multiple occasions.

Ur views on the gods are extremely disrespectful...gods aren't celebrities! They are beyond comprehension. U should not downgrade people who devote themslves to their beloved deities! Blessed be!

Fruit cup, let me just say... You got your views, I got mine. What I believe in is not really your business. Everyone has different views about these things. I think they are mere celebrities in the astral world that humans give a lot of energy to, or...they're strong egregores. I do not believe all of them are loving, unconditional, or typically good beings in my book at all. Secularism and atheism exists in these categories... You know...the whole "it's beyond your comprehension" explanation sounds like a cheap weapon that hardcore religious people like to use. I can understand and respect the significance of a "deity" associated with culture, but I don't have to believe in it by its absolute. I still have critical thinking on the side to develop my own perspectives. You know...like...having a different opinion. ...It's pretty cool to have a different opinion, isn't it. You should try it. It's great. I'm not going out of my way to harassing devotees for their craft. They do their own thing, while I do mine. I don't care as long as they either mind their own business or play nice. Just because I don't agree with some of their beliefs doesn't mean I'm am going to go out of my way to dance on their pages mocking them. That's just being rude and classless. If you don't like my views about certain things, then please just block me. Nothing is stopping you from doing that right now.

IN(F) — Introverted Intuition supported by Feeling

Continues to work instead of seeking treatment for failing health. Sometimes has phobias. Likes to go out, to dance, knows how to tell a stor. Experiences hypochondriac neuroses, claustrophobia. Before an important event experiences strong emotions, may lose appetite. he Is blind to his own hunger. He ponders what is the point of something, the meaning, symbolical nature. "What will this do for me?", he worries about what he can do to affect others, what are people thinking about, how society, the collective, perceives him, how his friends feel about him. He often smiles, has a cheerful nature, but it is usually fake, not so sincere. Neurotic, obsessive pedantic and egoist yet soft, friendly and welcoming. Expressive, he likes to maintain a comfortable emotional ambient, he focuses on making human relationships and Keeping everyone united. A hopeless romantic, prone to stalking crushes and compulsive overthinking They fall in love, they aren't loving, they are within limerence. "Teen love" - this is a good name for it. He idealizes everything, he doesn't has clear opinions, his beliefs are dictated by the collective: he either believes or gets skeptical about love, because he usually understands love only in a specific sense - the standard sense. When he thinks about emotions, he thinks about pop. mainstream. generalized emotions. Humanity for a long time idealized and represented love as romantic or erotic; so this type suffers from this: he easily believes in doing anything in the name of love, he would do anything for his loved ones, if he ever falls in love with someone, of course. Avoids showing his true feelings, he could be crying in one moment, and then in the other, he enters in a group, a collective, and he adapts to it, he stops crying and starts smiling, "acting". Very inclined to escapism, hallucinations, delusions and religion, ideology, existentialism and politics. He often relies on external sources, academics, he doesn't know how to explain things, so he needs to talk about his sources, he shows what people think, out of fear of being wrong. Anxious about being humiliated, he has a weak selt-esteem. The romantic dreamer likes to lay on a sofa with a book, or go to the countryside to spend time amidst nature. Many manifestations are inclined to cosplay, they like to live alternatives - finds ways to avoid boredom, uses old things and people in a new way and bringing the positive future into the present and past, staying light and hopeful in spite of anxieties. Struggles with videogames and orders: he is verv trial-and-error. He mav be cold. withdrawn. asocial. timid and extremely introverted; a gloomy figure with low confidence.

He hides his insecurities. runs into situations of trust and marriage. Intense connections. Fantasizes about people, delusional imagination of being accepted, praised. They find difficulty to express what they want, often times they do not realize what they wish in life; they ask people "how do you create interest?" because they lack actual desires and passions. Individualistic in some manner. Creates music, laments his own existence, prone to atheism, agnosticism. Diligent but unfocused, non-disciplined, often loses concentration, but he is always doing something - it could even be living in his dreams. He compares himself with other people, tends to be jealous, envious, yandere. Inclination towards mysticism and superstition, beliefs in prophetic dreams and omens. He is a person who is emotionally labile and uninhibited, does not control his own emotions, some manifestations of the type make fun of people and are sarcastic. Some versions, instead of comforting people with the warmth of his soul, begins to manipulate other people and act capricious and touchy. "Everything is wrong" and "things didn't turn out to be as desired". Many times expresses a desire to be hugged, to be protected and helped, he is weak and thinks of himself as someone "not prepared", he worries and worries. Some people of this type spend their time alone, don't have many friends (may not even have friends. He likes to dive himself in meditation. It is important to understand everything. Therefore, if you ask him about the difficult things sometimes, you can hear the answer that he understands them (only a very peculiar). It is important that everyone knew him as well. If understanding is impossible, that human self-esteem drops, so it does not like to admit that something is not understood. It is important to praise the consistency, likes to boast that he was up to something thought of himself. Often he loves to refer to some everyday stories, because nobody will not even think to check their authenticity, in general likes to refer to someone as a way to protect their reasoning. He is a person prone more to reflection than action. "If I understand correctly, then I am a good person". The fear of turning out to be incompetent greatly narrows down the areas in which the person dares to demonstrate or apply their knowledge. This type wants to solve his problems by collecting objective data. It is necessary to consult the experts, to obtain the data and results of studies, to receive objectively reliable new information. "Any unpleasant sensation or experience it's best to endure and wait over, than to seek how to improve one's state or move to another place that offers better conditions."

Intro to Tantra

Tantra as a subject has always fascinated me, its ability to break orthodoxy, to reform religious and spiritual expression from within all the while maintaining a strong religious identity, whether it be Hindu or Buddhist. This is just a piece I wrote to understand this vast and complex subject and I hope you guys enjoy it as well. 

What is tantrism? 

Tantra etymologically is a hard to define term. The literal meaning is “loom, weave/ warp” and can also mean essence. However, tantra can be more intuitively defined as any systematic broadly applicable "text, theory, system, method, instrument, technique or practice”. it’s an esoteric occult tradition which is almost always equated with spiritual sex or sex magic in the west. In the eastern tradition, however, it is much more than that. Further, it is a magical tradition that is a part of both Hinduism and Buddhism. In Hinduism, there are both the right hand path (eg: Sri Vidya) and the left hand path of Tantra (eg: Kaula). 

The right hand path seeks to keep in line with orthodox principles of Hindu society while the left hand path seeks to break down all the boundaries between purity and impurity which is where the theory of pancha Makara and other such practices comes in (the usage of meat, fish, parched grain, wine and sexual union in ritual), which each represent the 5 elements. They use this rather than the usual representation (I.e flowers, lamp, incense, food, sandalwood paste for each of the elements) because ‘liberation is achieved by the use of that which causes bondage’. In Buddhism, tantric practice is primarily developed as a part of Vajrayana Buddhism which was highly influenced and developed in Tibet from the Shiva tantras. The agamic traditions are also called tantrism, where the agamas mean "that which has come down”. The Agama literature is voluminous, and includes 28 Shaiva Agamas, 64 Shakta Agamas (also called Tantras), and 108 Vaishnava Agamas (also called Pancharatra Samhitas), and numerous Upa-Agamas. These tantras/agamas are also more commonly referred to as the fifth veda by those schools inclined to assimilate it, some schools seek to unite Tantric and Vedic teachings while others do not. 

So what is the ultimate goal of Hindu Tantrism?  

It’s to unite shiva and Shakthi within oneself and ultimately achieve enlightenment [only in the shaivite and Shakthi traditions], the different schools such as Kashmiri shaivism and shaiva siddhanta (shiva sect) and Sri vidya (shaktha sect) are only defined as such due to their inclination toward one either shiva or Shakthi as their main deity, however, the underlying principle remains the same. The Vaishnava sect (worshippers of vishnu) also have their main tantric doctrine called Pancharatra which is ritually similar to shaiva siddhanta, both of which are orthodox and quite rigid traditions whose rituals are followed in South Indian temples. But the most interesting aspects of Tantra comes from the theory that for the tantric the ultimate goal is Jiva Mukthi (immortality in the body) and it is not to be achieved through an ascetic life but rather there are 4 goals in life: Artha (wealth), Kama (sensual pleasure), dharma (righteous duty) and moksha (enlightenment/liberation). And so there must be a balance between worldly life and spiritual life. Further, tantrics believe that the ultimate non duality is when there is nothing that can be stated as moral or immoral and some go to extreme sadhanas (spiritual practices) in order to remove the shackles of duality. To them then everything in the world is sacred, almost like an antithesis to atheism and as a reaction to the orthodox religious traditions, hierarchy and “purity” described in them. 

The philosophy of immortality itself is actually incredibly interesting. Because it is believed that after death the soul reincarnates and has to go through this cycle of living etc again and with the added belief that the soul and the divine is ultimately one, it is viewed that the best way to achieve true enlightenment is by extending one’s life (immortality, jiva mukthi). The process to achieve immortality is further described in detail with most of the tantric doctrines agreeing on the fundamental principles to achieve it. In that regard, from the perspective of a tantric, the texts describe an almost scientific manner to achieving the goals of mysticism/magic with a myriad of tools, doctrines and symbolisms used within each of the schools to achieve the ultimate goal. Achieving immortality when one is alive, however, is not in contrast in contrast to the ultimate aim of other dharmic traditions which is to achieve moksha (liberation [after death]), it is instead the ultimate form of liberation according to tantric doctrine. 

Yoga Vs Tantra 

While yoga can be classified as mystical tradition, Tantra can be seen as a magical tradition. The differences between the two can be summarised as, “mysticism is the art of giving and magic is the art of getting”. You could say that the two philosophies are linked through the practice of Kundalini yoga. Just like yoga there are some commonalities between all the tantric schools and tantric philosophy more generally. The seven common characteristics (although there could be more) are: 

it’s an esoteric tradition because it is deemed to be dangerous and contains transgressive practices and so entry into practice requires initiation and the traditions themselves use highly metaphorical imagery 

You need a teacher (guru), who is the one who initiates the disciple [personal opinion: especially with fake gurus being a rampant phenomena It’s my personal philosophy which echoes Shaiva siddhanta “shiva is the sat guru (the teacher of all/the eternal teacher)”]

The use of yantras (geometrical figures) 

The use of mantras (chants) 

Revaluation of the body as a positive being embodied with subtle energies (kundalini yoga and chakras) 

Problematic mental states viewed positively and used in order to achieve the divine 

Deity identification and unity with the deity 

These seven characteristics are common to both Hindu and Buddhist tantric traditions. Now, there are obviously quite a lot of differences in worship even within each subdivision of each philosophy and more generally between philosophies and I haven’t really touched upon Buddhist Tantrism but this sort of gives a basic introduction to the vast rabbit hole that is tantra. 

I know the last thing you should do with bigots is to engage with them. I know that, nothing comes from it.

But I have to admit morbid curiosity at just how far this individual would bend over backward to deny the truth. I’ve come to the conclusion that they must live in a whole different parallel world.

Highlights of this conversation:

claims of not easily being grossed out after the act of consensual sex between two off-age partners in a committed relationship grossed them out (this kickstarted this conversation, fyi)

somehow mixing up and combining atheism, paganism, patriotism and capitalism into one concept of “atheistic paganism”

calling pagan gods “not remotely good” and condemning paganism (which just seems... baffling, considering we’re having a conversation about THEIR god condemning people who have sex before marriage or who simply exist as homosexuals to eternal damnation. Sure, sure, the pagan gods are the evil ones here)

“homophobes do not exist”, based on their narrow definition of the semantics of the word, completely denying the actual concept it refers to

based on the semantics: homophobes have “a solid PTSD-level terror”, so naturally they would never seek out that which they fear

“someone with a phobia about running across homosexuals; why then would such a person even willingly encounter people dealing with same-sex attraction, pray tell?”

saying acts of violence against gays are “forbidden, rightfully so” while in the same sentence saying that voting “against same-sex lifestyles is a Totally different matter altogether“ and lacking the braincells to connect these two dots

still lacking the braincells after I connected the dots of voting against same-sex will restrict and take away rights, inevitably leading to acts of violence against this group of people no longer being forbidden and, ultimately, being incited by the law. I explained this. With the very universally known example of WWII and concentration camps

“they have PTSD about you, but they then seek you out? Come on! None of that makes any sense, really at all!“ they really got hung up on this lil definition of homophobes that they made up in their lil brain

"First of all, homosexuality was openly *supported* by the Nazis“, this is where I reached my limit, btw

“In fact, Trump's supporters are the Good guys at that, as history has proven abundantly.”, a paragraph down from limit reached

"your whole stance is utter nonsense; as the strong need not fear the weak, nor do they“, yeah no this isn’t even a fun thought experiment on how your weird brain works anymore since you just flat out refuse to understand what oppression is and how it works

“the Nazis were really extreme left-wing“ final but FAVORITE line of this whole conversation. The embodiment of the radical right is actually extreme left. For sure, since this whole conversation was very upside down

This was easily the most repulsive conversation I’ve ever had. And, again, I know arguing with bigots is pointless, I never expected to come out of this having converted them or anything, but to actually read the levels of denial of the real world, of real oppression, hate-crimes and the existence of... of just other view points, quite honestly - since they kept claiming “objective reality” over the “fact” that homosexuality is wrong - was... mindblowing.

Nothing makes me feel more like taking a shower, not just or my body but for my soul, than talking to someone who’ll try and act like oppression doesn’t exist.

How can people ACTUALLY believe in God? via /r/atheism

How can people ACTUALLY believe in God? I am in college and recently had an argument with my roommate because she could not FATHOM how I didn't believe in hell or heaven. She literally said, "so what do you think happens when you die, total darkness?" Yes. I do. I grew up in a household where religion was NOT talked about because we all think its a whole bunch of BS. And because of this, I almost judge people who are religious, as bad as that sounds. I just cannot even wrap my mind around people thinking there is an all mighty God that controls everyone and everything. Literally is so unbelievable it sounds like a cult. Why cant people just believe we are on this Earth just as ourselves? We are in charge of our lives, not some superficial higher power. I put God in the same category as Santa or the Easter Bunny, some fiction character made up to make you act right and follow rules. But do people only really believe because they are grand fathered into it? What about the Mormons who literally dedicate their life to God? I just really don't get it at all and I will never. Sometimes I wonder if my strong opinions will affect me finding a partner or succeeding some day. Most of my friends grew up with religion and say they aren't really that much anymore, but no one ever fully admits they are an ATHEIST like me. I have tried to read the Bible just to educate myself, but I end up just getting extremely angry each time. I just don't get it. And I never will. Submitted April 15, 2024 at 10:17PM by Hot_Examination_8357 (From Reddit https://ift.tt/PbDaLgJ)

BILLY SUNDAY

BILLY SUNDAY

1862-1935

Baseball player, Religious fanatic, anti-alcohol

            Billy Sunday was born into poverty in Iowa, US, his family later moved to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. His father was enlisted in 1862 and died 4 months later at an army camp from pneumonia. Mother and children moved in with their grandmother, and when he was 10, his poverty stricken mother sent him and his brother to an Orphanage, where he gained an education and enjoyed sport. He moved to Marshalltown, working odd jobs and started playing for his local baseball team. He then played as an outfielder in baseball for the major league for 8 years. In 1886 he met Amelia ‘Nell’ Thompson, they were both smitten and married in 1888.

            Sunday is best known for being an influential evangelist who left his baseball career for the Christian ministry. He attracted large crowds with his sermons and was known to run from one end of the stage preaching. Sunday admitted that people could ‘be converted without any fuss’.

            Sunday was never a heavy drinker and became fanatical against alcohol and was a strong supporter of Prohibition, which helped win passage of the prohibition in 1919. He was also against swearing and gambling. He was against child labour, supported women’s suffrage and tried to build the bridge between races (which the Ku Klux Klan weren’t too happy about). He supported America participating in World War I and raised money for the troops. He opposed the teaching of evolution and criticized dancing, attending the theatre and reading novels. He was okay with people playing baseball as he believed it was healthy, as long as they didn’t play it on Sundays.

            Sunday was extremely wealthy and was welcomed into the social elite. He dined with President Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as well as with Hollywood stars. He and his family dressed well in expensive clothing and jewellery. Even though he was wealthy, he gave most of it away and wasn’t an extravagant spender.

            At the end of his life, Sunday wasn’t as popular, his health declined and the couple had less staff to help them with the sermons. He suffered from a mild heart attack and continued working against doctor’s advice. Sunday died a week after preaching his last sermon, aged 72.

#billysunday #religion #atheism #religiouspreachers

Set this to clown music... and I mean this man in general. (aka Toxic Pea is the worst Kirby YouTuber)

TW: Discussion involving a bigot, primarily around transphobia (and I mean as soon as the first picture), not to mention many other grim topics.

Look, as big a guilty pleasure as hearing of internet squabbling can be, I never wanted to be the one to actually discuss it myself. But I feel like I just needed to get this one out of my system sooner than later.

So in case you didn't know, Toxic Pea is a Kirby YouTuber who uploads tons of memes and lyrical covers of Kirby songs (never liked the idea of those videos btw). He was quite popular until it was revealed in January of this year that he had said the N-word multiple times on Discord even as he was told that it was a horrible thing to say, not to mention tons of other signs of him being a bigot with, at best, practically no respect for LGBTQ+ people, like for example prefacing videos alluding to gay ships by saying that he hates "gender ideology". Also he keeps making weirdly risque and gross jokes over Elfilin, which combined with his other actions somehow does the impossible in making me hate Elfilin even more. The list goes on, but believe me when I say I am far from the first person aware of this nor the one most affected by it, even if the big well-done thread that outed him has since vanished. I admit that I never really saw all of that coming, but honestly I briefly had bad vibes about him way back last spring when, in the wake of the tragedy in Uvadale, he made a YouTube community post basically saying that atheism was far more responsible for mass shootings than mental health or gun laws, and even when someone made a well-thought out reply with a strong counterpoint who happened to say that they were atheist, he opened his reply to that by basically going, "But God is real lol", and even if I believe he wasn't that rude throughout the response (it's an old post so it's either lost or extremely hard to access now), that frankly strikes me as a really douchey thing to say in a discussion like that. (I'm aware that he lives in Spain, assuming that counts for anything at all.)

When that happened and a ton of Kirby YouTubers understandably shunned him, he put out a classic crappy apology and from there has just spent the year as the most deplorable clown on the Kirby side of YouTube. He made jokes in videos about saying the N-word again, sponsered a trend called "Reclaim June" (take a wild guess how they feel about gay people) and questioned why anyone would be proud of being gay or trans, whined about his downfall and his peers disowning him through the classic "I'vE bEeN cAnCeLlEd!!!" talk, became Fortnite buddies with Mirth and defended her with some insufferable "JeSuS fOrGiVeS hEr FoR cReEpInG oN kIdS!!!" bs, and a month ago, after getting torched for using an old meme involving someone who distanced themself from him without their permission, went on a truly baffling, borderline drunk-sounding ramble of a Community Post that included claiming that all of his moments of xenophobia were faked, trying to indoctrinate people into Catholicism (he's that kind of guy as far as using his religion to excuse being such a turd), and randomly saying at the end that he was making a Kirby movie (he's like the fakest Kirby fan ever off his bigotry alone but whatever). (I should mention that he has said multiple times that he is bisexual, and it seems genuine to me. He's even hinted at taking shame in it over his religion and stuff. It's absolutely no excuse for his actions, but I feel like clearing that up as he seems to have some internalized homophobia or something. I've unfortunately heard of gay people being transphobes, and I have indeed heard more recently of bi people being homophobic, so I feel like I should clear that up, especially considering my own misconceptions earlier.)

That leads us to today when he reacted to people's distaste for him by first acting as if him being Asian had anything to do with it and acting like he's being crucified for nothing. He then claims he loves trans people like any Christian neighbor would before immediately breaking out into a diatribe about how much he pities trans people and how they are inherently sinful for "mutilating the body that God gave them for his/her ego" and that he's just as bad as them? Like he occasionally complains about people viewing Christians as inherently hateful people, but frankly he's doing nothing to help that image for the many good Christians who I can't help but feel bad for, the ones who practice their faith while not being hateful crapheads over it. Not to mention that he still has several people sticking up for him and occasionally even indulging in more explicit hate that makes him look that much more like an enabler. (There's admittedly not much that's too hateful, but there's a rare not-moved commenter under that post trying to counter his crap about transitioning being a sin through some half-decent house metaphor, and it turned into a long thread that included one dipcrap throwing out the T-slur, just to show how uncomfortable they could be.)

So yeah, Toxic Pea, true to his name, is a toxic pea-brain who sucks. Don't interact with him. I admittedly have some bile fascination in seeing how this mess evolves (if that's a bad thing, then let me know), but it's really unfortunate and honestly baffling how a franchise like Kirby can have such ignorant, hateful "fans". (Like it's not quite as oxymoronic as the concept of a homophobic Steven Universe fan, but it's up there.) So again, don't listen to this twat, and if this is news to you and you liked him, then I'm sorry I had to be the bearer of bad news for you.

(Edit: I don't know if this is too late too matter, but I'd like to apologize about my frankly close-minded response to his bisexuality, because it does seem genuine and that he's even so in on his belief of homosexuality being a sin that he feels ashamed about it, which may well be internalized homophobia. It's not at all an excuse or a justification for his actions, but I felt bad for being so close-minded about that aspect of him.)

Day 304: Understanding Humans

It has been the most fascinating topic over the last few years - and possibly my life - to understand humans. Why we do the things we do. Why we want the things we want. We we feel the things we feel. We we are intrigued by the things that intrigue us. Most important of all, how to build a system that satisfies everyone.

There are so many topics that confuses me. First I will discuss how I am feeling. Then I will discuss some global topics.

Desire for Excellency, Impact, and Greatness

I have a desire to do great things. I want to be excellent. I want to impact the world in a positive manner. I want to create something that makes humans better off. I want to live my life knowing I lived to my potential and made a difference in the world. I do not want to be another random in the system. Especially since I am lead to believe it is a system where I am the resource, benefitting the top of the chain while living against my best interest. I want to be great, but in a way that brings prosperity to others, not just myself and my team. I believe one of my talents or callings is to bring people together. I have this desire to be extraordinary and pursue a noble cause.

Desire Not To Be Controlled

I have this desire to pave the way for myself and reject following the general path. Perhaps this is because none of the paths seem appealing to me. Nothing screams with glory and honour. Doctor? There is a lot of those. Lawyer? Corrupt and helping the rich. Software engineer? Helping technology companies harness our data. The only path the seems noble is scientist/researcher. Their true intentions are noble, and they are great. This path requires a lot of sacrifice in time, money, and flexibility.

Global Scale

Okay now I want to talk about some topics that interest me. This will highlight some major topics and how humans behave. Never mind I am too lazy, maybe I will back on a later day, but the general topics are below. I am curious why humans can be so adamant about these topics. Why are the same human species but we believe one side rather than the other so adamantly. Some people ignore injustice while many recognize it and want to do something about it. Some poor people hate the rich since they think they are greedy and evil, and some rich people dislike the poor since they think they are lazy and complain and take without providing anything. Why some people believe there is a god and everything was created for a reason, while others say everything was created by chance. Why some people want the system to burn while others love the country or life they live. Why some people refuse to work for someone else and others happily want a job. How people believe in cults and terrorism and are willing to do extreme things for something they believe in and others thing that is silly that someone can be that misguided. Anyways, it has always intrigued me how humans can become both sides of all these issues and how they have such strong feelings and beliefs about the other.

Topics:

injustice

leading not following

poverty vs rich

entrepreneur vs job

why cults, terrorist, anarchy

religion vs atheism

"Last week the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision that Lorie Smith, a Colorado-based Christian graphic artist and web designer, did not have to create content that violated her beliefs. In response, Clara Jeffery, editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, tweeted, “perhaps gay stylists, designers, caterers, and planners should start withholding services from Christian conservatives and see where that goes.”

After all, Jeffery reasoned, if a Christian can create content for a gay couple, surely gay professionals can decline services to Christian conservatives.

More extreme was the reaction of actor Michael Imperioli who posted on Instagram,

“I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching The Sopranos, The White Lotus, Goodfellas or any movie or TV show I’ve been in. Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA! USA!”

In her strong dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that,

“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” And she claimed that the ruling comes amid a “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities.”

Many headlines reflected similar sentiments, such as this one posted on the UK Guardian: “US supreme court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights with Colorado ruling.”

In reality, the ruling did no such thing, and Justice Neil Gorsuch was right to challenge Justice Sotomayor’s arguments.

He stated that Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion “reimagines the facts” from “top to bottom.” He also argued that she failed to answer the fundamental question of, “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”

In his view, what Justice Sotomayor was arguing for was for the court to allow the government to force an individual to “speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction.” This is clearly a violation of our most fundamental Constitutional rights.

That’s why law professor Jonathan Turley described the Supreme Court decision as an “amazing moment” in history with regard to the First Amendment. And he rightly pointed out that the decision had nothing to do with discrimination, since Smith freely served a wide range of customers, including those who identified as LGBTQ.

As Turley noted, cases such as these “do not change the public accommodation laws. You cannot be refused to go into stores and buy items that are pre-made, for example, based on your race or your status.”

But if someone wants to compel you to create something contrary to your convictions, the state cannot compel you to do so.

That is exactly what Colorado law was trying to do, and the Court, by a ruling of 6-3, shut that unjust law down.

Kristen Waggoner, CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Erin Hawley, an ADF attorney, echoed Turley’s sentiments, writing,

“The Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis is a crucial victory for every American regardless of their religious, political, or ideological views. In that case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the most fundamental of civil liberties—that the government may not tell people what to think or say.”

As for the counter-argument raised by Jeffery’s and others, I’d love to hear their answer to these simple questions.

Should a gay web designer be compelled by the state to design a website for a counseling service that helps people overcome same-sex attractions?

Should an Orthodox Jewish web designer be compelled by the state to design a website for Jews for Jesus?

Should an atheist web designer be compelled by the state to design a website called “Answering Atheism”?

Should a trans-identified web designer be compelled by the state to design a website on the dangers of hormone therapy and sex-change surgery?

Should a Muslim web designer be compelled by the state to design a website for a meat service specializing in pork products?

Should an African American web designer be compelled by the state to design a website selling Confederate flags?

Should a Christian web designer be compelled by the state to design an “Adultery Hookup” website?

Should any web designer be compelled by the state to design a pornography website?

If Jeffery or Imperioli were website designers, should the state be able to compel them to create pro-Trump content for a Republican lobbyist? Or content stating that he won the 2020 elections?

The answer to all these questions is obvious: none of these people should be compelled to create content that violates their beliefs or convictions. The state clearly has no right to compel them to do so.

And what about a gay-owned T-shirt company? Should they be compelled by the state to design a t-shirt with the words, “God does not recognize same-sex marriage”? Should a Christian-owned printing company be compelled by the state to design flyers for a Satan conference? The list goes on and on, and in every case, the answer is an obvious “No!”

But should these same individuals or companies be allowed to refuse general services to someone because they are gay or trans or Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Black or White?

Obviously not.

That’s why some of the Christians who have come under attack in recent years had served LGBTQ+ customers for years. Some of them even had LGBTQ+ employees. But when it came to creating artistic content that violated their beliefs (such as creating a wedding cake or designing a floral arrangement for a same-sex ceremony), they declined. And for that, they were dragged into court, with their lives turned upside down. (See here and here for prime examples.)

In the same way, if a gay person said to Lorie Smith, “I’m Tony and I’m gay, and I’d like you to create a website for my window cleaning company,” it would be illegal (not to say unchristian and unethical) for her to say, “No, I won’t do that because you’re gay.”

But if Tony said, “I’m Tony and I’m transgender, and I’d like you to create a website for my children’s books that are designed to help kids recognize their hidden trans identity,” it would be legal (and Christian and ethical) for her to politely decline.

That’s why the Supreme Court’s decision should have been 9-0, applauded by people from all backgrounds.

The fact that it was 6-3, with many Americans outraged over the ruling, reminds us of just how confused our nation has become.

May truth and sanity prevail."

Dr. Michael Brown

“Extremely strong atheism”

(tw death, fear, life-threatening danger, anxiety, drug use, war, cancer, car accident, near-death experience)

(copied from Twitter)

So "dread of ego dissolution" is a measure of an adverse psychedelic effect where you are terrified your self is being destroyed (similar to what I saw when I almost died?), and having this happen from psychedelics is associated with worsening depression (frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…)

I feel like when you've seen what actually happens when you die and your self is erased into nonexistence (speaking from my actual experience of almost dying, not a hallucinogen) it's almost impossible to stop being aware of it at every moment and freaking out about it constantly

I think my awareness of this may be an absolute contraindication to ever trying psychedelics again. There isn't ever going to be a "set and setting" where I'm not constantly aware and terrified of death, and you aren't supposed to give someone psychedelics when that's going on

Drugs like psilocybin and MDMA are also used to treat traumatic stress and PTSD, but even if that does anything (the overall effect might not be all that impressive), there's just something about this particular experience I had of seeing what death actually consists of

It's not like any drug I ever happen to take is going to change anything about our fundamental situation as decaying material beings trapped for a finite span in a physical universe before we're killed and erased like an animal dying. How is hallucinating supposed to fix this? I didn't have an out of body experience at all when it was happening, and actually, since HRT made me stop dissociating, it's possible it helped keep me grounded inside my body as it was being killed and my perception stayed completely fixed in place as everything was closing out

There's also some positive version of this apparently experienced under psychedelic use called "oceanic boundlessness" associated with better outcomes and improvement in depression symptoms. There's an entire history of calling it "oceanic". Why does it have to be that :(

But yeah, when you know that reality is actually a fucking horrifying nightmare you're trapped in and your body can literally die and wipe out your entire self forever, taking a drug that generates more apparent altered realities of an unclear nature seems extremely dangerous

And if there were a drug that did anything to fix this, it would have to be some kind of hypothetical drug that actually changes beliefs and values, something that makes you acquire a belief in an afterlife or postmortem "survival" even when there's still no evidence of this

Which would also be a really worrying effect for a drug to have and it's probably really good that drugs can't do that

I wish this was something that could be more conventionally addressed like depression, or like a specific phobia of water, but there's not a way to exposure-therapy yourself about the fact that death is still always there and waiting to finish the job of erasing you at any moment

Nobody understands why that experience isn't something I can just get over. I could spend however much money on therapy and still come out the other end as a body that knows it's going to die

A lot of "bad trip" experiences with psychedelics involve reports of something like fear that one will be trapped in a place for eternity or will experience something going on forever. Not the fear and certainty that everything is actually about to end in the next few seconds

I wish I had a subjective eternity to be terrified of, at least you'd still exist at all

I've been extremely angry since then, more than usual, at Christian religions claiming there is a hell, because I don't consider this a threat, I consider this a bogus promise they'll never make good on

It's "hell"? Who cares about that part? The point is they're telling people you get to keep existing after you die which is awful and untrue and a disservice to everyone

I have actually screamed at campus preachers about how this is worse than hell and how dare they even promise us hell? I'm hopeful that going through some studies of what is happening during "ego dissolution" in psychedelic use may provide some information on what my brain was doing and perceiving while I was drowning, although it should be specific to the the "dread" part (pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/74/4/8…)

I'm still very confused about how being dunked underwater for less than 5 seconds, and not having my body physiologically die or even come close, caused me to acquire that significant of an experience and apparent knowledge in what seemed like one key moment

Previous thread on how, at least on paper, this suggests cocaine is something that reinforces your sense of self and increases your confidence in a way apparently opposite of ego dissolution. I can't confirm that because you can't just be doing cocaine

That scale above was able to, for instance, show that cocaine use has an almost opposite effect of "ego dissolution" seen with psychedelics. Cocaine and psychedelics are tapping on the same slider there. So that's like saying doing cocaine was a life-changing spiritual experience (https://twitter.com/ZJemptv/status/1589853648074727424)

But does cocaine make you stop being afraid of death all the time? I really hope that when I do die I'm so out of it at that point that I have no real lucidity or comprehension at all of what's happening, because being completely aware that it's happening is the worst thing ever

I've had to stop describing it in so much detail because it was starting to give a couple people frequent ruminations about death after they read what I was saying and they hadn't even had a near-death experience, so just, going into death suddenly with eyes wide open is so bad

It also completely upends your life when you survive, there is so much now that I just don't care about anymore, because I can't force myself to consider it important enough to be worth spending my limited time on

I mean I completely understand now why my paternal grandfather absolutely lost his shit and went off the rails after serving in the Korean War and why my dad did the same twice after almost dying in a car accident at 18 and almost dying of leukemia in his early 30s

It has a way of absolutely arresting your attention, although in their cases it also led to an incredible amount of egregiously erratic and sometimes uncontrolled irrational behavior that was dangerous to themselves and others

As in problematic substance use, violence, unaddressed severe mental illness, a ton of destructive and maladaptive behaviors that I personally am not interested in leaning into

Anyway, I need a specific term for: this fusion of true belief and deep knowledge, reinforced by acquired experience, of an atheistic nonspiritual physicalism-materialism/other nondualism in the nature of the universe and consciousness, that entails destruction upon bodily death

Because this experience strongly confirmed for me some kind of Atheism And Then Some

I'm not exaggerating when I say I'm thinking about this on some level at literally all times since the moment it happened at approximately 1:00 PM on September 2. There's no way not to be aware of it even just as the backdrop of everything, and frequently it gets foregrounded

I've never believed in anything more deeply and strongly and genuinely than what I saw and experienced that day

There's weak atheism, there's strong atheism, and then there's this "extremely strong atheism" that honestly seems to have been imposed on me, in the form of an experience similar to the "faith conviction" sometimes described by adherents as their form of religious epiphany

Just not like a conversion, but a very emphatic reaffirmation that what I previously believed on a deep level is also in fact true in reality on a deep level

The Fine-Tuning Argument for God’s Existence

Here’s a simple experiment to help test whether God exists:

“Hold a refrigerator magnet about one inch above a paperclip. If the magnet picks up the paperclip, then that tiny magnet was able to overcome the gravity of an entire planet.”¹

How might this provide evidence that God exists?

Well, if gravity had been as strong as magnetism is now, then you wouldn’t be reading this article, because you never would have existed. The entire universe might just be a huge black hole.

It’s fortunate for us, then, that the physical constants, such as the strength of gravity, have the values they do. Similarly, there are laws of nature that appear to be necessary for our existence.²

A third example of the universe’s being suited for us is its initial conditions, for example, that the universe began in a state with lots of usable energy.³ Some philosophers and scientists estimate that some of these constants, forces, and conditions couldn’t have varied by more than one part in 10⁶⁰ (i.e., a one with sixty zeros after it) and still permitted life.

Therefore, perhaps, we should very strongly expect that a universe in which the constants, laws, and conditions formed mindlessly and purposelessly would be one in which life was almost certainly impossible: not just human life, but anything remotely resembling conscious life as we know it.⁴ It’s difficult to imagine how any conscious life could be composed of hydrogen alone, or could live in a black hole.

By contrast, if God exists, then He would intentionally fine-tune a universe’s laws, constants, and conditions so that they permit life like us.⁵ A morally perfect God would value life, especially embodied human beings with free will, and so ensure the universe’s physical laws, constants and initial conditions allowed for our existence.⁶ This is the basic reasoning behind the Fine-Tuning Argument for God’s existence.

We can summarize the argument as follows:⁷

If God does not exist, then it was extremely unlikely that the universe would permit life.

But if God exists, then it was very likely that the universe would permit life.

Therefore, that the universe permits life is strong evidence that God exists.

Critics of the Fine-Tuning Argument, however, have challenged both premises.

The Probability of a Life-Permitting Universe, Given Atheism

The first challenge argues that a life-permitting universe isn’t improbable, even if there isn’t a God. The three most-popular ways to make this case are as follows.⁸

1. The Anthropic Principle

Some objectors argue that it’s not improbable that we would find ourselves in a life-permitting universe, because that’s the only sort of universe we could find ourselves in—otherwise, we wouldn’t exist at all.⁹

One reply: If you were to survive being shot at by a firing-squad of ten expert sharpshooters, you should still be surprised that you survived, even though if they’d killed you, you wouldn’t have been around to notice.¹⁰ So we can still say that something is unlikely, even when, if it had not happened, we wouldn’t have been alive to observe it’s not happening.

2. A Deeper Fundamental Law

Some suggest that the probability of a life-permitting universe, given atheism, might be much higher than we thought. Perhaps all these constants, laws, and initial conditions are all determined by some deeper, fundamental law which can only take on a few values.¹¹

One reply: Other than this objection’s being a speculative hypothesis, this deeper, fundamental law seems to need its own fine-tuning.¹² Why did we happen to live in a universe that had this deeper, fundamental law at all, instead of having a slightly different deeper, fundamental law, with life-forbidding sets of constants, laws, and initial conditions?

3. A Multiverse

Perhaps we live in a multiverse: a set of parallel universes with differing laws, constants, and initial conditions. If so, then it’s not improbable, even given atheism, that at least one of those universes would permit life. And surely if one universe permits life, then we’ll exist in that universe.¹³

One reply: The existence of a multiverse doesn’t raise the probability that this universe (that we’re in right now) would permit life, so it doesn’t really help explain why we would live in such a universe.¹⁴ Think back to the Sharpshooter Analogy: Even if you knew that all over the world, there were many other firing squads shooting at prisoners at the same time, you should still be surprised that you survived. So, the existence of a multiverse doesn’t make it any more likely that our universe would permit life, given atheism.

The Probability of a Life-Permitting Universe, Given Theism

The second sort of challenge argues that it’s not really very likely that God would have created a life-permitting universe like ours. Maybe there’s no reason for an omnipotent God to create fragile creatures like us: why not create disembodied minds, and not worry about whether the universe’s constants, laws, and initial conditions permitted physical life?¹⁵

One reply: Perhaps there is something particularly good about the existence of embodied moral agents, who can affect each other’s lives and well-being in predictable ways. Perhaps only physical beings can be seriously harmed and so their acts of free-will are morally significant.¹⁶

Conclusion

The debate goes on. But if the evidence from fine-tuning is as strong as the proponents of the argument say it is, then it is a very powerful argument indeed for the existence of God.

Notes:

¹ Robin Collins, “The Teleological Argument,” in William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, 2012, §2.3.2., pp. 202-281. ² Ibid., §2.2. ³ Ibid., §2.4. ⁴ Ibid., § 7.4. ⁵ Ibid., § 5.2. ⁶ Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 168-169. ⁷ For two of the most-important recent presentations, see Collins and Swinburne. ⁸ Here I set aside the “no probability” objection (e.g., Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew and Eric Vestrup, “Probabilities and the Fine-Tuning Argument: A Skeptical View,” Mind 110, 2001: 1027-38), according to which we cannot meaningfully assign probabilities when there is only one example (one universe), or when there are infinitely many possible variations between strengths of constants and forces. My reply is that we’re discussing epistemic probabilities, which report the degree to which a person is justified in believing or expecting something (Collins, § 3.1). ⁹ See John Leslie, Universes, Routledge, 1989, Chapter 6, and Collins, § 6.1. ¹⁰ Ibid. ¹¹ Collins, § 7.2. ¹² Ibid. ¹³ Klaas Landsman, “The Fine-Tuning Argument: Exploring the Improbability of Our Existence,” in Klaas Landsman and Ellen van Wolde (eds.), The Challenge of Chance: A Multidisciplinary Approach for Science and the Humanities, Springer-Verlag, 2016, pp. 111-130. ¹⁴ Roger White, “Fine-Tuning and Multiple Universes,” Noûs 34, 2000: 271. See also Thomas Metcalf, “Fine-Tuning the Multiverse,” Faith and Philosophy 35, January 2018: 3-32, for a more-detailed criticism of the Multiverse Objection. ¹⁵ For example, Herman Philipse, God in the Age of Science? A Critique of Religious Reason, Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 157, questions both why God would want to create any other minds at all, and why he would want to create physically embodied minds. Here, compare Trent Dougherty and Ted Poston, “A User’s Guide to Design Arguments,” Religious Studies 44, 2008: 99-110, which examines the interesting relationship between the Fine-Tuning Argument and other design arguments. Metcalf (2018: § VI) considers this objection and argues that it doesn’t seriously threaten the Fine-Tuning Argument. ¹⁶ For this reply, see Collins, 2012, § 5.2. See also Swinburne, 2004, pp. 99ff., for discussion of the value of these embodied moral-agents.

I want to let u know that ur views on gods are extremely disrespectful. They are not just celebrities please.

Dear anon. Did you know that different views exists? Atheism and secular witches/people exist too. Beliefs, faiths, and spiritual ideals are going to be different and they also inevitably clash. I also may have doubts and disagreements with some of these beings, but I don't go out of my way to bother devotees about them. That's their practice and that's their business. I have my experiences and I have my own too. Yes, I still believe the "gods" are just popular celebrities in the spirit/astral world whom took up the human construct of the title of "godship," because of the large amount of energy of faith and belief they receive from their followers through rumors/stories. Or, some are invented and became strong egregores. It's no different for me than seeing a bunch of fans simping over Beyoncé or something of that matter. (Hey, that's just me, okay?) Now, I didn't say this is wrong either. For example, I like Anubis as a person I grew to know, not for their title as a "god." Him being a "god" has nothing to do on why I care to have him around and why I love him as a dear friend. I believe they can exist, but I don't believe in certain aspects as such. I believe in my Family, the family on this planet that raised me, and the entities that do form close personal relationships with me whether they're gods or not. They earned my respect which is why I respect them in return for what they show me as a person -- in other words: You're nice to me, I'll be nice to you. I live by that simple rule with no cutting corners. If my beliefs royally upsets you, please block me.

That atheists dni post isn't leaving my brain. I knew, technically, that the US was more religious than France, but this much?? Because like. You have freedom of religion we have freedom from religion. The state can't be affiliated to any religion because that would be seen as the state endorsing it and that isn't neutral! No swearing on the Bible for presidents, no religious signs on public buildings, if you're a civil servant you're representing the state and I think when you're on the job you shouldn't show signs of your religion either, same thing for anyone in a public school, etc. This has bled over into society, in the sense that I think unless you're in a church, you can safely assume people you don't know the stance on religion of are atheists and be right about it (unless they're wearing specific clothing) You cannot avoid atheists because anyone could be an atheist. The only reliable way of avoid atheists would be only talking to people at your place of worship or to people you met through religion, to make sure they are indeed religious, and that's a bit extreme. Maybe american atheists are different but I'm assuming a lot of people of my generation are atheists because they were raised that way, and they don't have super strong opinions about it like someone who lost their faith might have. I'm not going to debate you or anything I am literally just chilling. It just baffles me. What did that person think atheists were going to do to them. Sometimes religious people post about their religion but being an atheist isn't a religion!! At best you'd get a religion free space!! One time on a survey the person asked "which religion are you a part of" and atheist was an option and I don't know how to explain that atheism isn't a religion. It's thinking there's no god. We don't have beliefs as a group other than "there's no god". We don't have traditions, we don't follow the word of X or Y, the only thing we agree on is there's no god. It's not a religion. And people treat it like it is?? That's so wild to me. If you're part of a specific group like pastafarianism then yeah there are specific things tied to that but general atheism? We just don't believe in god. That's it. Maybe you don't want to hear about it because you do, but in that case you don't say atheists DNI you say "if you post about atheism DNI", because those are different things. Anyway. Wild shit

How do you deal with doubt? You seem very sure of your faith, with all that knowledge and stuff. For me, I have these phases of doubt that are so time and thought consuming. I'm in one right now and I really can't be dealing with that at the moment. So... would you say there's a way to fight the doubt? Most people would probably go with prayer. That's the first thing I tried, but that barely did something for me.

i think there's a terrible culture within christianity that shies away from the use of doubt as a means to faith, but the truth is that i would not have as much conviction in my faith if i hadn't also gone through extreme periods of doubt. people who never experience doubt are very lucky, but i think there is an element of passivity to unquestioning faith which is held up as pious virtue but is really kind of benign. moreover there's also a terrible misrepresentation about doubt, where it's presented as a kind of moral failure or a kind of "point of no return": if you have doubt, then it must be your shortcoming. i disagree with this unilaterally. when we doubt, it shows that we are thinking about what we have chosen to place the vibrant, energetic power of our belief in.

if you want to take a truly christian slant, then even jesus experienced moments of doubt. the forty days in the wilderness and his prayers in gethsemane are among the most pivotal personal moments in his life, but they are both characterized by doubt.

recently a friend expressed how they found it strange that someone as logically-minded as myself had decided to pursue something seemingly entirely illogical, like theology; but he caught himself quickly and said, "but you were logically convinced to believe in God, right?" and this is true. i spent a long period of my life tortured by doubt, doubt strong enough that i abandoned my faith entirely in favour of atheism, which at the time seemed "logical." but as time went on, for a variety of reasons, i realized that it was actually more illogical for there to simply be nothing. so doubt actually became foundational to my belief because it forced me to really assess: what was i doubting? why was i doubting it? doubt forced me to find explanations for what i could not explain and because of this, my faith is not benign but based entirely on empirical evidence. and i would not have been able to do that without doubt.

in the book of job, God allows the tempter to subject job to torturous circumstances in order to test his faith. i love the first chapter of job and this scene of satan being present in the court of y---. it's a very different picture of the devil, temptation, and even doubt: something that is a tool used by God to strengthen us. even doubt comes from God. God does not test us, but he does allow us to suffer. when we suffer, we learn how to endure. catherine of siena wrote that nothing great was ever done without much enduring. endurance is the nature of God: God, like love, endures all things. we must suffer in order to learn how to emulate that endurance. and so our faith must also suffer- this intense love we experience for God, or the universe, or whatever deity or power we place our trust and hope in.

learn to love your doubt. it is there to strength you. lean into it. recognize the presence of God in doubt. God is not merely a thing that exists: God transcends human understanding to become present even in his apparent absence. a 9th century scholar, john scotus erigena, sums this up beautifully:

"We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything [i.e., "not any created thing"]. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."

God is not created, so he doesn't exist. God simply is. he is present in your prayers, he is there in the tangible markers of his presence, and he is there in your doubt. reach out for him: he will catch you.