Is secular humanism and or atheism harmful to society?

[Moontanman]

I am going to assume that the Rev is like most religious people in that they think that not only are all true believers good people but non believers must be somehow flawed due to the us and them syndrome that seems affect much of humanity.

 

If indeed secular humanism and atheism were groups of like minded people who met every so often to plot the take over of the world, which is, to be perfectly honest, exactly the way I view religion. I would be the first to say they are no better than religion. How ever if indeed secular humanists and atheists are having these meetings some how I didn't get on the invite list.

 

The entire of idea of not wanting to control everyone else breaks down the instant you start to gather followers. The two ways of thinking are polar opposites but not because one is real and the other false or one is dangerous or the other is not. One is group think, the other is independent thought. One is do like I say or suffer, the other is think for yourself and take responsibility. I choose the latter, sadly the former doesn't think i should have that right, so which one is more dangerous? it depends on how much you treasure individuality and freedom and what you make of them and how you treat people who think different than you.

[pamela]

I am going to assume that the Rev is like most religious people in that they think that not only are all true believers good people but non believers must be somehow flawed due to the us and them syndrome that seems affect much of humanity.

really, moontanman, i think you do the rev a great injustice by boxing him into your own concept of what you think religious people are like. That is not fair.Your view is perpetuating the syndrome of which you speak.

If indeed secular humanism and atheism were groups of like minded people who met every so often to plot the take over of the world, which is, to be perfectly honest, exactly the way I view religion. I would be the first to say they are no better than religion. How ever if indeed secular humanists and atheists are having these meetings some how I didn't get on the invite list.

A plot to take over the world? well thats a little extreme in my opinion. Yes there are different religions who's main purpose is to attract followers and some that would gain more than just people but property as well.

The entire of idea of not wanting to control everyone else breaks down the instant you start to gather followers. The two ways of thinking are polar opposites but not because one is real and the other false or one is dangerous or the other is not. One is group think, the other is independent thought. One is do like I say or suffer, the other is think for yourself and take responsibility. I choose the latter, sadly the former doesn't think i should have that right, so which one is more dangerous? it depends on how much you treasure individuality and freedom and what you make of them and how you treat people who think different than you.

Now my turn to assume- are you speaking of Christianity here or all religions? there again, this is unfair. You should really cite some examples to make such accusations concerning people and ideologies that want to infringe upon your rights. It is not so cut and dry as you would make it out to be. Individuals have the freedom to choose those concepts that they would adhere to. There is freedom in choice. The only time i can see this playing out differently would be in the case of a cult. I treasure my individuality and freedom and choose to respect people who follow religion despite our differences.

[Moontanman]

Tell you what, you guys make the RevofAllrevs back up his bullshit and I'll back up my bullshit, until then my bullshit is just as good as his bullshit..... the rev has proved over and over he has nothing but contempt for everyone with his smug condescending posts and claims of persecution. And yes I was speaking principally of the Christan and or Islamic faiths but it does apply to any other school of thought, religious or otherwise, who try to convert everyone to their way of thinking. Cut and dry, no of course not, but my opinion is what I say it is and it's wrong to consistently try to get other people to believe the way you do and if your world view requires you to convert everyone else to your world view then your world view is wrong. If any one says that the the world view of the worlds major religions, isn't one of conversion than you are not paying attention, any freedoms that religions claim to respect are only those they allow in their particular interpretation of their scriptures, religion, given freedom to choose (read that control) we would all be at each others throats trying to convert the nonbelievers. I doubt very much anyone who truly goes by these "faiths" really believes in freedom of choice except where it is forced on them from the outside by secular forces. The past behavior of these religions is the proof, if not for secular forces allowing freedom of thought and or action we would have none what so ever...I stand by what I say.

[pamela]

Moontanman, i suggest that you reread this thread.The rev has been very respectful in his posts, while you have not.You of course are entitled to your opinion. You have been asked to support your claims.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, i suggest that you reread this thread.The rev has been very respectful in his posts, while you have not.You of course are entitled to your opinion. You have been asked to support your claims.

 

Oh God, how I wish that everyone who makes claims would be required to support them but in this case I am quite confident I can support any claims I made. Tell me what you want supported and I will do so, all the rest is my opinion.

[Moontanman]

BTW, I'm not kidding I don't think I made any claims that are outrageous or not easily backed up the rest is my opinions. If I cannot back up my claims I'll apologize but i don't think i made any....

[Boerseun]

The analogy drawn by Dawkins on religion being a "virus of the mind" is not so far-fetched, after all.

 

Consider a dog infected with rabies. This poor mutt, a friendly dog who loves all the people in the family, plays with the kids and lies in front of the fireplace at night, suddenly turns into a blind, uncontrollable and vicious rage when seeing those very same people he played with only a few days ago. He attacks them and bites them without having the freedom to ask or understand why. The rabies virus knows exactly which buttons to press in the dog's brain to get this response, because it is beneficial to the virus. Keep in mind, though, that the virus didn't plan it - it merely happened that other viruses have developed other vectors over the ages that works for them. Airborne viruses make you sneeze. And their only goal is just to infect another host. There are no higher purpose for a virus.

 

When it comes to religion, evangelicism is the vector. And, to agree with Moontanman, they are "trying to take over the world" in the sense that a "mind-virus" will attempt to infect as many hosts as possible, with its own survival being the one and only goal in sight. Seeing as this particular meme can be considered a "virus of the mind" and not of the body, there are no biological vectors to employ. The host is conned by the virus to believe that this particular meme is good for him/her. They will get everlasting life etc., they will win the good favour of the ultimate authority. This is merely pulling pre-existing strings. "Everlasting Life" pulls the string attached to your innate instinct for survival and self-preservation. Being in the ultimate authority's (God's) good books pulls the strings that make you grovel in front of the Alpha Male in the primate dominance hierarchy. And if that particular mind virus tells you that in order for you to win the Alpha Male's (the Abrahamic God is decidedly male) favour you have to be a "fisher of men", evangeliscism is born, and the virus continues to infest and infect.

 

They might not consciously be trying to "take over the world", but very much like a rabid dog biting the hand that feeds it, they know no better. The end effect is the same.

 

A Jehovah's Witness knocking on your door is exactly the same as a flu victim sneezing in your face. Neither of them know the real reason they're doing it. They are under the control of a virus. And that virus will bullshit you and lie to you and pull all the strings necessary to spread itself.

 

Skepticism, rational thought and Science might very well just be an inoculation to this virus. I wonder if a good case cannot be made to the World Health Organisation to embark on a massive inoculation drive to get rid of this virus, like they did with polio.

 

So coming back to the OP, I don't see inoculating against a virus as being "harmful to society". Quite to opposite, in fact.

[pamela]

The entire of idea of not wanting to control everyone else breaks down the instant you start to gather followers. The two ways of thinking are polar opposites but not because one is real and the other false or one is dangerous or the other is not. One is group think, the other is independent thought. One is do like I say or suffer, the other is think for yourself and take responsibility. I choose the latter, sadly the former doesn't think i should have that right, so which one is more dangerous? it depends on how much you treasure individuality and freedom and what you make of them and how you treat people who think different than you.

Oh God, how I wish that everyone who makes claims would be required to support them but in this case I am quite confident I can support any claims I made. Tell me what you want supported and I will do so, all the rest is my opinion

You are making a broad generalization here,in the bolded and my intent was to show you:)

It is important to be definitive or we all can get locked into your us/them syndrome. We are talking about individuals, each with their ability to choose as they will. To blindly accept indoctrination is to remove that aspect of individuality. For the child, this is easily accepted. But as maturity progresses and knowledge is acquired, there is now the choice.To allow one's self to join the masses of sheeple, it starts with a choice.

I am continually amazed at how religion is viewed as a dark entity with the power to take over one's mind and create subhumans.Having a superior attitude towards those who think differently than you, is generated in the ego.Love, respect and courtesy are easily tossed to the wayside. Sure, many people have been burned by people strong arming their religion. But the point is, that it is people. To raise up against in anger and contempt only serves to destroy the bridge that may connect humanity together in peaceful coexistance.

The religious ideology has its purpose in many lives. It gives hope to the brokenhearted.Not all aspects of religious ideology are harmful. When those aspects that are at emnity against society and respect for humankind, that is when it is harmful.Wars, hatred, abuse are manifestations of this.Our responses should be a such in how to tear down those strongholds that would unravel the fabric of humanity.We should not employ hatred and contempt as a weapon in retaliation as that only perpetuates the cycle of destruction

[InfiniteNow]

I believe you misframe the issue by speaking of hatred and anger, Pam. The issue is one of extreme exasperation, as the rational and reasonable critiques continue to fall on deaf ears/blind eyes of the religious.

 

Boerseun is quite right... It is a virus. Not all parts of religion are bad, nobody is saying that. The larger point is that it's bad enough to discuss why, and not be charged with labels like "hatred and anger."

 

Yes, religion has done some good, but so did racism (depending on one's perspective). We still ostracize racism, and for good reason. I think dismissing it as an "us/them" issue misses the point a bit. It's more about weeding these ignorant worldviews from our society and excising them like the cancer they are.

 

 

And... in that sense... a good dose of rationality and mandate for evidence to support extraordinary claims goes quite a long way. Considering people have been unable to offer evidence for a good couple of millenia, it truly is no wonder why so many non-believers get so frustrated and exasperated.

[Moontanman]

You are making a broad generalization here,in the bolded and my intent was to show you:)

It is important to be definitive or we all can get locked into your us/them syndrome. We are talking about individuals, each with their ability to choose as they will.

 

That freedom to choose is the first thing that religion unchained would take from you. In the past when religion was powerful freedom of thought and action as a dangerous thing to exercise anywhere but in private and sometimes not even then. Religion unchained was used to burn witches, boil people of other religions in oil, but more important than these extremes was the general idea that you had to worship in the proper way. To refuse to show your fealty to the God of the moment was truly dangerous to your health and well being. You never had the chance to develop that rational free thinking mind, it was so forbidden it wasn't allowed to exist at all. Only after secular forces gelded religion was the wide spread idea of freedom of thought and freedom from religion persecution possible. If I honestly thought that religion as a whole just wanted volunteers and got them by showing it's self to be a superior way to view the world I would have no problem. But they do not, they are like creepy dishonest used car salesmen. They will lie and and coerce you into religion by any mean necessary and then point to free thinkers as being intolerant of them. How can you be tolerant of a group that schemes and plans to take you freedom away from you. of course not everyone who is religious specifically has that in mind as they proselytize but ultimately that is the goal of the religion, it might not be a well known goal to the masses of the relgion but it is the goal of the movement as a whole.

 

To blindly accept indoctrination is to remove that aspect of individuality. For the child, this is easily accepted. But as maturity progresses and knowledge is acquired, there is now the choice.To allow one's self to join the masses of sheeple, it starts with a choice.

 

To remove that choice is the stated goal of religion, Islam goes so far as to say choose us or die. Christianity is a little more subtle but it's goal is the same "to remove your freedom of choice in favor of them choosing for you. You look at religion from the stand point of the gelded Christianity we have today. With out that separation of church and state, something religion struggles against all the time, all the freedom to be tolerant of others would be taken away, it would be taken away from you in an instant under the right circumstances. I know you have friends of another religion, if the government control was taken away the local dominant religion would persecute your friends and you, hound you at the very least until you are on the fringe of society , barely allowed to exist. It has happened in the past when religion had real power, it would happen again if it was allowed. Once you loose that right to choose it is very difficult to get it back, some would say virtually impossible, Religion is a bully, it bully's society in many ways both gross and subtle but it's always there trying to induce you to join in the great fight against those who oppose it.

 

 

I am continually amazed at how religion is viewed as a dark entity with the power to take over one's mind and create subhumans.Having a superior attitude towards those who think differently than you, is generated in the ego.Love, respect and courtesy are easily tossed to the wayside. Sure, many people have been burned by people strong arming their religion. But the point is, that it is people. To raise up against in anger and contempt only serves to destroy the bridge that may connect humanity together in peaceful coexistance.

 

Do you really not see religion as the very course of the intolerance you say you think is so wrong? Religion is all about intolerance. How can being intolerant of the intolerant be bad? The religion we see today in the USA is religion gelded by the government, it is religion held in check by laws that force it to back off. Without those laws religion would be a very dangerous thing.

 

 

The religious ideology has its purpose in many lives. It gives hope to the brokenhearted.Not all aspects of religious ideology are harmful. When those aspects that are at emnity against society and respect for humankind, that is when it is harmful.Wars, hatred, abuse are manifestations of this. Our responses should be a such in how to tear down those strongholds that would unravel the fabric of humanity.We should not employ hatred and contempt as a weapon in retaliation as that only perpetuates the cycle of destruction

 

Yes it does have purpose in people lives, it gives them hope because it tells them they are superior to the smucks who are going to burn in hell because they are too stupid to see the real "truth" I do not hate them I am not talking about hatred but they do. With out the catalyst of religion a great many of the wars and hatred and abuse would never have happened. Religion is routinely used by humanity as an excuse to hate and kill. It is true we should not employ hatred and contempt but we should keep our guard up to prevent religion from gaining any power over us in any way shape or from that we do not freely give. You have to remember that even that is dangerous due to the stated goal of the major religions to convert unbelievers. Once they gain enough followers they gain the power to get more and more power ultimately taking away the freedom of others to be free thinkers or to simply live outside the bonds of intolerance and hatred that religion represents.

 

The people who like their religion to be tolerant and a good influence should thank the secular forces that have reduced the power of religion to dictate behavior. In the past, and the past is a huge indicator of what is possible, religion was the source of state power, even kings and queens ruled via power granted them from god. The very concept of states is rooted in these first exercises of religious power. Can you imagine what is would be like if the USA had a state religion and ruled via the bible? I think it would be very close to hell on earth, it certainly would be for any one who rejected the religious point of view.....

[InfiniteNow]

If I honestly thought that religion as a whole just wanted volunteers and got them by showing it's self to be a superior way to view the world I would have no problem. But they do not, they are like creepy dishonest used car salesmen. They will lie and and coerce you into religion by any mean necessary and then point to free thinkers as being intolerant of them. How can you be tolerant of a group that schemes and plans to take you freedom away from you. of course not everyone who is religious specifically has that in mind as they proselytize but ultimately that is the goal of the religion, it might not be a well known goal to the masses of the relgion but it is the goal of the movement as a whole.

It's actually explicitly demanded of them in the book of Matthew:

 

 

Matthew 28:19-20

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 

 

The concept is well elaborated upon here:

 

What Happened to Discipleship in the Epistles? | Bible.org

What does our Lord mean by this command to ‘make disciples of every nation’? Looking back in the Gospels we are reminded that the term ‘disciples’ was used of those who were the followers of Jesus.222 In the book of Acts, the term seems to be used as a synonym for ‘Christian’ or ‘believer’ (Acts 6:1,2; 9:1,26; 11:26, etc.). From this we should conclude that the command of the risen Lord was to carry out the task of leading men to be His followers, just as men had done during His earthly sojourn.

 

Why use the term ‘make disciples’ then? Why not simply command that we evangelize the world? The reason is that Christianity is more than a decision to trust in Christ as Savior. It is not enough to invite men to believe in Christ as Savior. In the Gospels, our Lord invited men to follow Him, not just to believe on Him. Christianity is more than a moment-in-time conversion; it is the radical transformation or conversion which leads to a whole new way of life. It implies the forsaking of our former way of life, and our commitment to live as God requires, by His grace. In other words, discipleship is used because it compresses conversion and Christian living, salvation and sanctification, into one term. Conversion to Christ, in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, was inconceivable without a commitment to follow Him in life.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, tell me of any secular societies that will cane a woman 40 times for wearing pants. :)

 

BBC NEWS | Africa | Sudan 'trousers trial' adjourned

[pamela]

I believe you misframe the issue by speaking of hatred and anger, Pam. The issue is one of extreme exasperation, as the rational and reasonable critiques continue to fall on deaf ears/blind eyes of the religious.

well there is anger and hatred on both sides of the coin, i am afraid, it is evident even in these threads. Trust me, i too get exasperated, as my daily life is affected by extreme fundamentalist views.

 

Boerseun is quite right... It is a virus. Not all parts of religion are bad, nobody is saying that. The larger point is that it's bad enough to discuss why, and not be charged with labels like "hatred and anger."

I don't consider religion to be a virus. I am not trying to label either. Infact, i hate labels, really. What i see is the hatred and anger, emotions that get the best of all of us at times.

Yes, religion has done some good, but so did racism (depending on one's perspective). We still ostracize racism, and for good reason. I think dismissing it as an "us/them" issue misses the point a bit. It's more about weeding these ignorant worldviews from our society and excising them like the cancer they are.

I personally don't view it as us and them- i was only addressing Moontanman's syndrome. I see people that either follow a religion or not, it's that simple.I am all about shedding light in the darkness of delusion and opening the mind to knowledge and evidence:)

 

And... in that sense... a good dose of rationality and mandate for evidence to support extraordinary claims goes quite a long way. Considering people have been unable to offer evidence for a good couple of millenia, it truly is no wonder why so many non-believers get so frustrated and exasperated

agreed

[pamela]

That freedom to choose is the first thing that religion unchained would take from you.

you are personifying something that is merely a concept

 

In the past when religion was powerful freedom of thought and action as a dangerous thing to exercise anywhere but in private and sometimes not even then. Religion unchained was used to burn witches, boil people of other religions in oil, but more important than these extremes was the general idea that you had to worship in the proper way. To refuse to show your fealty to the God of the moment was truly dangerous to your health and well being. You never had the chance to develop that rational free thinking mind, it was so forbidden it wasn't allowed to exist at all. Only after secular forces gelded religion was the wide spread idea of freedom of thought and freedom from religion persecution possible.

really Moon, we are talking about present day

 

If I honestly thought that religion as a whole just wanted volunteers and got them by showing it's self to be a superior way to view the world I would have no problem. But they do not, they are like creepy dishonest used car salesmen. They will lie and and coerce you into religion by any mean necessary and then point to free thinkers as being intolerant of them.

 

come on now, this is really way over the top conjecture on your part

How can you honestly say that the millions of people who follow religions are like this??????

 

How can you be tolerant of a group that schemes and plans to take you freedom away from you. of course not everyone who is religious specifically has that in mind as they proselytize but ultimately that is the goal of the religion, it might not be a well known goal to the masses of the relgion but it is the goal of the movement as a whole.

 

I am tolerant of people, its really not that hard, when when your goal is to be humane and kind. If you are talking about a specific group here, then you must clarify whom and what freedom is being affected. otherwise, it is just more broad generalizations that mean nothing without back up

 

To remove that choice is the stated goal of religion, Islam goes so far as to say choose us or die. Christianity is a little more subtle but it's goal is the same "to remove your freedom of choice in favor of them choosing for you. You look at religion from the stand point of the gelded Christianity we have today. With out that separation of church and state, something religion struggles against all the time, all the freedom to be tolerant of others would be taken away, it would be taken away from you in an instant under the right circumstances.

I know you have friends of another religion, if the government control was taken away the local dominant religion would persecute your friends and you, hound you at the very least until you are on the fringe of society , barely allowed to exist. It has happened in the past when religion had real power, it would happen again if it was allowed. Once you loose that right to choose it is very difficult to get it back, some would say virtually impossible, Religion is a bully, it bully's society in many ways both gross and subtle but it's always there trying to induce you to join in the great fight against those who oppose it.

moon, you are projecting here. If church and state were to unite- then all hell would break loose;)

 

Do you really not see religion as the very course of the intolerance you say you think is so wrong? Religion is all about intolerance. How can being intolerant of the intolerant be bad? The religion we see today in the USA is religion gelded by the government, it is religion held in check by laws that force it to back off. Without those laws religion would be a very dangerous thing.

you really need to be specific, cite examples of the intolerance. Otherwise, i am simply viewing individuals as a part of a collective whole

 

Yes it does have purpose in people lives, it gives them hope because it tells them they are superior to the smucks who are going to burn in hell because they are too stupid to see the real "truth" I do not hate them I am not talking about hatred but they do.

this is your conjecture only moon

 

With out the catalyst of religion a great many of the wars and hatred and abuse would never have happened. Religion is routinely used by humanity as an excuse to hate and kill. It is true we should not employ hatred and contempt but we should keep our guard up to prevent religion from gaining any power over us in any way shape or from that we do not freely give.

yes people have used religion for this purpose

 

You have to remember that even that is dangerous due to the stated goal of the major religions to convert unbelievers. Once they gain enough followers they gain the power to get more and more power ultimately taking away the freedom of others to be free thinkers or to simply live outside the bonds of intolerance and hatred that religion represents.

there again moon, it is up to the individual to make that choice-whether to blindly follow or reject it

The people who like their religion to be tolerant and a good influence should thank the secular forces that have reduced the power of religion to dictate behavior. In the past, and the past is a huge indicator of what is possible, religion was the source of state power, even kings and queens ruled via power granted them from god. The very concept of states is rooted in these first exercises of religious power. Can you imagine what is would be like if the USA had a state religion and ruled via the bible? I think it would be very close to hell on earth, it certainly would be for any one who rejected the religious point of view.....

well at least we agree on something;)

[Donk]

When I was younger I used to like debating religion. As the decades pass, it loses its charm. Every discussion goes down a predictable route, with both sides thinking (and often saying) "he wanted a debate, but he's not addressing the points I make or even trying to understand them." And that's the big trouble. A yawning gulf between the believers and unbelievers.

 

Debating other things is easier. You have the groups polarised at the fringes, yes, but there's a large mass of people in the middle who can act as a bridge between the extremes and help towards understanding. Unfortunately, religious debates don't work like that. The large mass in the middle are simply uninterested. They don't want religion in their lives, but they don't want to argue about it either. Many of them go to church, synagogue, mosque or temple every week. Not because they believe, but because it's what they were brought up to do. They keep in touch with the community, make friends, attend social events, and generally network. A small price to pay for acceptance.

 

In many communities, if you don't do this you're considered odd, or dangerous, or sinful, or downright heretical. Easier to keep your head down, follow the herd and say nothing. Though it's not so easy if you're a Pakistani lip-service Muslim and the local mosque hotheads are campaigning for Sharia Law to be introduced, girls' schools to be closed, and so on. Then you have to come off the fence and make a decision. :)

[jackson33]

RevOfAllRevs

First a disclaimer. I hold no ill will toward any group of people including of course atheists or secular humanists. Being a Christian all people are to be loved, regardless of their beliefs. However that doesn't mean that we don't have opinions concerning if a lifestyle or paradigm is harmful to society etc.

 

I find it interesting that this user name and the initial post on this thread, in the 'Theology Section' a collective forum 'opinion' is "infamous around these parts".

 

Is secular humanism and or atheism harmful to society?

 

Using your own words, atheist and secular humanist are PEOPLE and should be loved. I'll note your not saying ignorant or those Christan's pursue with intentions or those with other than Christan theological beliefs or those like myself can find nothing substantial or consistent in any of the 3,721 different practices currently preached. Atheism itself is a belief in the individualism or that the human spirit is and should be a private issue, which unlike every religion teaches conversion.

 

Hitler was born and raised Catholic, probably believing he would eventually make it to some heavenly place, although granted is arguable and surely he had some mental problems. However his action if indeed in revenge against the Jewish (I don't think so), he was not the first and very likely the last in centuries of warfare over religious convictions in those high degrees. As for murder being legal in Germany in the 1930's, well that's just not true. I would bet 99% of persons in Germany, felt Hitler was sending those folks off for their own safety or maybe exiling, but NOT to slaughter...my opinion.

 

Having said all that; Religion or the belief in a higher power than their own existence has been a leaning post for society, long before the religions of today existed. Mankind since reasoning began, tried to search out cause and effects, knowing they could do nothing. They invented Gods to protect themselves from Natures perceived evils. As humanity developed and their brains for that reasoning capability those God's became a God, becoming the modern concepts for safety in an unsafe world. My point; Since time began and as it is today, it's helpful to the majority of all humans to accept a possibility of struggling through a life, with all the problems involved, feeling there should be some reward, someplace else to go and for some reason. This is and has been good, it's not going to change for hundreds of generation, maybe never, but the question that must be asked; Is there a better way to accept life, its problems, the hopes and desires of those that pass on or will than the current philosophy? Could it be or would it be any different to an end result, if each person could (they won't) form and live with some understanding based on their personal life.

 

Socially speaking, taking out the speeches from text written long ago, Church's and religious philosophy have worked just fine. Benevolence with out purpose is a great thing, has been for thousands of years, all sciences have benefited and much of each of the Worlds major culture, laws and morality have come from their respective viewpoints. I personally just bought Elvis Presley's religious CD's. I kind of think if their is an after life, whether I believe in it or not, any God I would or could have worshiped in my many years would not pick, choose or reward or punish any person, maybe any living thing....