As infants, as children, often as adolescents, we are urged/instructed/coerced into maintaining a faith in the concepts of "God" or a belief in the notions of a so-called "higher power", through the expositions of one religion or another, by more mature individuals who, frankly, ought to know better. The ethereal powers in which this faith is placed, however, are incapable of supporting, rewarding, justifying or realizing such beliefs.

I had once been impressed with and intrigued by the fact that most people defend their religious beliefs through a testament of faith. I'm afraid, though, that I never had, nor at this late stage in life, do I expect I ever will have faith in much besides the fact that the Red Sox will never, ever win a World Series (in my lifetime, anyway). Having, by nature, very little confidence in the veracity of mythology and fable, therefore, I tend to wonder if the faith professed by most of mankind in their "divine" dogma isn't based more on the life-long effects of generic, wearying and baseless propaganda than on reasoned emotional attachment. I've always found faith in my own reasoning to be much more rewarding, much more justifiable than faith in the transcendental.

Apparently, faith comes in two basic varieties, rational (conscious) faith and irrational (religious) faith. An example of "rational" or conscious faith would be the man (or woman) working in a windowless, noisy, temperature controlled room. As he (or she) drove into work that morning, the temperature outside was 70 degrees under clear skies. The morning weather report predicted fair weather for the next 48 hours and our man (or woman) is happily anticipating going to a baseball game that evening. As our man (or woman) is busy doing his (or her) job, a fellow employee rushes into the room and announces that he's been told by his supervisor that it's snowing outside. Our man (or woman) is aware that this messenger is usually gullible, subject to misinterpretation of information and known as a prankster. Moreover, considering the unreliable nature of the ultimate source of the tale concerning the alleged snow storm, our man (or woman) feels justified in telling his (or her) fellow employee to get back to his own work and not bother everybody. The other, straight-faced, insists that it is absolutely snowing outside. Our man (or woman) asks for proof...a snowball or snowflakes on the other's shoulders. Naturally, the other can't provide proof, he merely insists that his second-hand information is true. Our man (or woman), justifiably skeptical, thus maintains a firm belief that there is not a snowstorm and feels no need to trouble himself (or herself) by verifying the weather. Our man (or woman) therefore, exhibits "rational" faith.

"Irrational" faith, however, finds our man (or woman) to be a passionate snow-lover who may ordinarily be skeptical of unverifiable information. Suddenly, he (or she) allows him-(or her-)self to be in the position of unquestionably accepting such unreliable information regarding a sudden snowstorm from a source which is historically suspect and in spite of no observable evidence. This suggests that the average believer, especially a snow-lover (our man, or woman) must have an unjustifiable faith that it is indeed snowing and he (or she) gathers boots, hat, gloves, shovel and ski-lift ticket, all the while, offering a fervent prayer of thanks to an ethereal deity for providing a blizzard in June. To the knowing amusement of those familiar with the fraudulent source of the information, he (or she) blissfully steps outside to find his (or her) car glimmering in the summer sun.

The original source or perpetrator of the unsolicited misinformation passed on to our man (or woman) has several reasons for spreading unverifiable rumor, only one of which even remotely benefits the recipients. While the rumors can make both the snow-lover and the originator feel momentarily hopeful, happy and fulfilled in their existences, the originator of the rumor gains a reputation for originality and conviction. The perpetrator, in addition, gains for himself a feeling of vindication since he often is, himself, a victim of unverifiable rumor. Again, for himself, the perpetrator also gains wealth, power and influence by wagering money and/or favors on his ability to make the unbelievable worthy of faith by those who are apt and willing to be duped, especially newer employees unused to his manipulative nature. The perpetrator and his accomplices then assume that the amusement and entertainment experienced by the victims of his misinformation will contribute to their own feelings of happiness, contentment and fulfillment in their work while at the same time providing a financial and power base for the reign of the perpetrator as "jokester supreme".

Through all this, however, the perpetrator arrogantly ignores the fact that these people would feel just as happy, content and fulfilled without a baseless rumor about snow (or anything else) distracting them from their real tasks.

A natural and inflexible rule of human reasoning: any and every faith, theory, ideal, belief, construction or thought will never bear close scrutiny. All are flawed, subject to imperfection, error, misunderstanding and impermanence. This whole philosophy begins with religion and its deities. Since all mortal conceptions and perceptions are imperfect, the perfection usually attributed to the results of other ideals (such as deities) is obviously wrong. The urge or instinct to procreate, to live, to survive, to eat, sleep and defecate is inherent, is inborn. However, as Pavlov's dog learned to anticipate food, mankind learns its faith in the formulaic doctrines involved in the worship of deities. There must be a fundamental truth there!

One "fundamental truth" (imperfect though it may be) is the fact that based on all the available evidence, religionists, atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc. each seem to have equal claim to "true faith". As the Age of Enlightenment progresses, however, there seems to be more and more provable, scientific, irrefutable evidence that Nature is our ultimate creator and ruler, as opposed to the mythic, improbable, mortally generated deities so avidly and insensibly inculcated into the societies, the cultures and the psyche of the imperfect masses of humanity.

I've heard over and over that (religious) faith is a private matter between one and ones notion of a "higher power". If that were really so, believe me, organized religion would now be a figment of ancient history. What all religions are dictating to mankind, from the piping of the baptismal processional and flash of the circumcision blade to the funerary dirge and the dying embers of the cremation pyre is this: "With your 'faith' in our gods, you deny your individuality, your uniqueness, your intellect…your self. To us, you are an occasionally fiscally significant yet, essentially a spiritually insignificant particle of dust in the wind; you are part of the herd, of the masses, a small sheep in yet another big flock. We will even arrogantly admit this to you when we instruct you to recite the 23rd psalm/nursery rhyme…'The lord is my shepherd'…"

Thus, most of our species is consciously taught by whatever religion we are thrust into as innocents to deny the fact that our intelligence and imagination places humanity a small step above all other living things and biologically, through our own reasoning, makes us marginally more precious to each other than a lemming or a starfish or a sparrow or a housefly. I believe this dictated denial to be fundamentally wrong because individuals (most of whom have the advanced intellectual capacity, the free-will to reason their own acceptance and denial) choose to follow the "flock" mainly because they lack the informed insight (and perhaps the courage) to consider their alternatives. My point here is that the fly-by-night and mortally conceived deities theorized by religion have no merit in that choice whatsoever.

As part of their self-perpetuation, all religions are forced to publicly take themselves, their useless "sacraments", rituals, ceremonies, punishments, myths and fairy-tales entirely too seriously in their anachronistic tradition of forcing the "faithful" to do the same. It is the quintessential mandate to "Do as we say, not as we do". Generic religion is too confining and self-centered to please everyone...nor often, even the majority. Being, therefore, too pat, too linear, too mass-produced, too generic, too phony, it has usually misrepresented and misguided mankind's "faith" through the superstitious ritual, ceremony, icons, propaganda and transparent mysticism, which is the foundation of any religion and persists in calling this misplaced faith "truth". Then, to compound the problem, each dogmatic doctrine, though entirely different, based as they are on supremely diverse romantic beliefs, is considered by the faithful to be the exclusive "true faith".

In the case of "heaven" or "nirvana", etc., for example, can there really, physically be any such thing? Do Westernized concepts of the "afterlife" take into account the myriad possibilities represented by the hindu or buddhist notions of re-incarnation or the shinto philosophy of ancestral judgement?

Answer me this: when christians die, aren't their "souls" assumed to be in heaven simply because their individual culture demands it? Have ancient Romans, because of their "pagan" beliefs gone someplace different at death than modern, "christian" Romans? Or are they all, ancient and modern, simply GONE?

When those who subscribe to the christian dogma pass away, is their "heaven" different from the buddhist "nirvana"? From the hindu "re-incarnation"? From the muslim "paradise" or the jewish "heaven"? Because individuals evolve through and from different races and creeds, do they each go to different levels/continuums/universes/planes of existence when they die? Even if, speaking planet-wide, they're all members of the same species? In many cases it seems to be a given in each different religious culture that members of the "true faith", whichever one that may be at a given point in time and space, will be the ONLY person(s) to receive the benefits(?) of an "after-life" of "holy ecstasy", while the rest of the members of the entire species will not. What, pray tell, happens to others of any of the different religions than the one you, who is reading these sentences, place your "faith"? (See: sec. VII of The Manifesto)

Has anyone considered the possibility that the faith which we are brainwashed into entrusting to organized religions and their various deities is based on ignorance or, worse, outright fabrication?

Some of the lies my "fathers" told me:

That there is an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent "God" guiding me through life and breathlessly awaiting my arrival in "heaven".

That this "God" created mankind whole and complete beginning with Adam and Eve.

That Adam and Eve begat "original sin".

That Jesus was "divine", the result of a spontaneous "immaculate conception".

That "christ" was born in a manger in Bethlehem on Dec. 25 attended by goats and kings and "wise-men".

That christianity is the "true faith".

That there are four "gospels".

That the Jews killed Jesus.

That "christ" died for our "sins".

That Jesus "rose from the dead" (specifically as the impetus for christianity to be inflicted upon mankind, thus "saving" only that one-fifth of the world's population who believe in him?)

If I recognize these lies, you can bet your ass that the perpetrators of christianity recognize them too…but unlike most of us caught in calculated deception, that doesn't seem to embarrass anyone in the clergy (as long as those collection plates keep circulating). Indeed, the minions of christianity, even after acknowledging these (and other) lies, keep spreading this biblical and scriptural shit in what seems a continuous and blatantly transparent attempt to bury reason and truth with fable and deception. And christianity is obviously not alone in this chicanery; all other religions also have their unique and disparate lies, many of which are direct contributors to the inter-religious and inter-denominational intolerance so common throughout history.

However, when we ignore these lies, instead directing our faith inward toward ourselves, toward our own conscience, our own personal "god", I believe we have captured the essence of what faith is about. We are, after all, less prone to lie to ourselves than to be lied to by others. We're also much more aware and knowledgeable of our own spiritual needs and emotion and intellect and, especially, our conscience than is some unknowable, impersonal, imagined variation of "god". It's this introspection, a recognition of the comfort and the occasional discomfort which individuals, both righteous and "sinful" ought to allow themselves in this self-evaluation which will eventually produce a faith in the "self" (the real "true faith") and which determines morality, remorse and goodness or immorality, arrogance and "evil".

We are born with no preconceived notion of any "higher power", "god" or "savior". We develop our ideas of righteousness and "sin" as we mature. During this natural and finite maturation, we receive our unnatural misconceptions of faith and "heaven" (and spirituality) as we become cannily and cunningly enmeshed in what is probably the single most unreliable aspect of our existence, organized religion.

Seems to me, what's often believed to be good for deistic or religious faith (intolerance, sexism, spiritual barrenness, homophobia, blind devotion, deviant emotion, tax evasion) might be bad for individual spirituality. Conversly, what is usually considered bad for "god" and organized religion (free-thinking, spiritual fulfillment, logic, reason and truth) would be good for the uniqueness inherent in all of mankind. In the end, isn't what's good for you and me and our fellow men, women and children, though occasionally subverted by the failings of mortality, what life or existence is all about in our unique and separate lives? Has the conception of "god" (or Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, etc.) therefore, become an all-consuming metaphor for individual conscience? Has this metaphor been twisted and bastardized to fit the agendas of mankind's various organized religions, bolstering the fundamental facts that A) these individual and disparate religions (usually through their various zealots) will, for as long as they exist, cause misery and injury to each other in the name of (insert your favorite deity here) and B) all these religions embrace, as do communism, fascism and national socialism, each of the necessary ideals of world domination. (See "Another Philosophical Exercise") Any and all deistic religious ideology is, after all, dogmatically anti-free-will, anti-history, anti-intellect, anti-reason, and anti-truth. "Faith" in these religious ideologies, therefore, indicates a tacit support of all these basically anti-humanist conflicts and agendas.

Most religious thought, as it's been handed down through the ages, involves propaganda to the effect that only the "faithful" will receive, through their illogical creed, the intricacies of "god's plan" for the "redemption of humanity" (one's soul?) while non-believers will not. And this suits me just fine...I have enough to deal with in our allegedly civilized, temporal life. Let the "Jesus freaks" (and the yahweh freaks and the allah freaks, etc.) burden themselves with the unfulfilled anticipation of "god's plan", but remember, one man's "plan" is another man's Armageddon.

Think about "faith" in that sense and ask yourself: Who are the real heretics?