Why do people believe or disbelieve what they do?

[Trailblazer]

Why do people believe or disbelieve what they do?
It is my opinion that there are two main reasons, and it could be one or both:

1) They were raised as a believer in a certain religion and they have seen no reason to change their religion.

2) If they are a believer, they see evidence for their religion being true and for God’s existence, but if they are an atheist, they do not see evidence for any religion being true and they do not see any evidence of God’s existence.

As a believer I can say that the reason I believe in my religion and in God is because of what ‘I consider’ to be the evidence. I was not raised in any religion or believing in God. In fact, I cannot even remember thinking about religion or God before I joined my religion during my first year of college.

Why do some people see the evidence for a religion and for God so clearly whereas other people see no evidence at all? I think that what we believe or disbelieve is determined by a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, education, life experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these are the reasons why we choose to believe one thing or another.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm kind of the black sheep of a strongly fundamentalist Christian family. I take more after the video games I played as a kid (we're talking stuff like Soul Calibur and Powerstone - not Pac-Man) than I do them, but I guess it's always possible had I been born to an atheist family, I wouldn't be theist. I'm just of all beliefs different than theirs, otherwise.

 

[Secret Chief]

2) If they are a believer, they see evidence for their religion being true and for God’s existence, but if they are an atheist, they do not see evidence for any religion being true and they do not see any evidence of God’s existence.

I think quite a few religions are either non-theistic or are not concerned with an upper-case God.

Could it be true that in using the word or referring to "evidence" one is taking on board something from atheism? Are people with a religion normally concerned with evidence? I'm not sure...

 

[an anarchist]

2) If they are a believer, they see evidence for their religion being true and for God’s existence, but if they are an atheist, they do not see evidence for any religion being true and they do not see any evidence of God’s existence.

So I’ve been trying to figure out exactly what this evidence is. All the supposed evidence appears subjective, am I right? I guess there is logical arguments for god, I’m starting to read the works of Plato, who made logical arguments for god (everything is set in motion, motion has a cause, god is the cause). If they are sound I’ll have to see for myself. as of yet I am unconvinced by anyone on this site of their supposed evidence for god. We agree there is no objective evidence for god?

Why do some people see the evidence for a religion and for God so clearly whereas other people see no evidence at all? I think that what we believe or disbelieve is determined by a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, education, life experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these are the reasons why we choose to believe one thing or another.

But the difference is the faith believer has no objective evidence for god. Objectivity should be important, when it comes to evidence, do you agree?
Maybe I’m just playing devils advocate here. I’m a theist, an auto theist. Like Plato and Aristotle, I believe my soul is a deity. I don’t know if I agree on the details, have to read more. I believe in god and the soul for personal reasons I cannot discuss here without violating rules. The evidence is subjective, to say the least.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are people with a religion normally concerned with evidence? I'm not sure...

I do not think most religious people are concerned with evidence.... I think they just believe and don't know why.

 

[osgart]

For me I see evidence of intelligence in nature, but I see no reason to elevate that to God level stuff. I have no romantic attachments to any worldviews out there. I do wish there was a God. I always look at the evidence to see if I can infer more than what is there. I was raised on Christian religions, and did not enjoy that ride one bit.

To believe in anything supernatural I'd have to witness such events myself.

I do think naturalists, and religious people are prone to see what they want to see. I think the best attitude for truth seeking is to not be influenced by desire. That doesn't mean that existence won't come out to be as desired, but perhaps it'll never be anything as desired also.

My logic tells me there's more to life than meets the eyes. My senses tell me that this life is all there is. My heart is inclined to love the idea of there being a Supreme God. The natural world tells me that life is a fringe occurrence and nature is often hostile to life, and has very little harmony in it.

I sometimes hope there is a Supreme God or many such. Nature itself has crushed that dream though. I mean if I were a creator God, I would not make such a world as this one; it's far from being a masterful creation.

Then there is the fine tuning of the universe, and the multiverse idea. Science, amazingly, has a lot to say about how the universe came to be. I'm not swayed by every theory that comes along though.

At some point the ultimate explanation of reality will be a brute fact. Or maybe there's a reason for everything, but I don't buy that idea.

 

[Trailblazer]

So I’ve been trying to figure out exactly what this evidence is. All the supposed evidence appears subjective, am I right?

I believe that the Messengers of God are the best evidence for God and the only evidence God has ever provided. Creation is evidence but it is not direct evidence and could have come into being by a means other than God.

But the difference is the faith believer has no objective evidence for god. Objectivity should be important, when it comes to evidence, do you agree?

There will never be any objective evidence for God because God can never be seen. The only objective evidence for God are the Messengers of God. Of course, whether we believe the Messengers are really Messengers of God is a subjective call.

I believe in god and the soul for personal reasons I cannot discuss here without violating rules. The evidence is subjective, to say the least.

I think we all believe or disbelieve in God for personal reasons.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I like the way the OP question is phrased.

I would add that "nonbelief" differs from belief in the way that it CAN have less to do with how someone is raised. Now of course, it is probably the case that children raised in atheistic households are more prone to nonbelief than those raised with the suggestion that they ought to follow the family religion.

But disbelief in itself differs because of the many claims that exist that don't relate to how one was raised.

For example, I don't generally believe in conspiracy theories. Now... I wasn't really raised one way or the other on that account: my parents were neither skeptics nor believers concerning conspiracies. And they transmitted no value to me either way as far as conspiracy theories go. But, pretty much on my own, I became a skeptic of them.

I'm sure it works this way with religion too. At least sometimes.

edit: I forgot to add that I agree with your main premise as far as nonbelief goes. There are environmental factors/conditions that are amenable to nonbelief. I just think it's different than belief in respect to how one is raised.

 

[sun rise]

The OP assumes choice. That did not apply to me and also not to some of my friends. We had experiences that caused us to change from being atheists. This is captured as part of a poem by Ladinsky "rendering" of a poem of Hafiz. It goes, in part: (Golden Compass)

Come, join the courageous
Who have no choice
But to bet their entire world
That indeed,
Indeed, God is Real.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do not think most religious people are concerned with evidence.... I think they just believe and don't know why.

Bingo!

 

[Sheldon]

Why do people believe or disbelieve what they do?
It is my opinion that there are two main reasons, and it could be one or both:

1) They were raised as a believer in a certain religion and they have seen no reason to change their religion.

2) If they are a believer, they see evidence for their religion being true and for God’s existence, but if they are an atheist, they do not see evidence for any religion being true and they do not see any evidence of God’s existence.

As a believer I can say that the reason I believe in my religion and in God is because of what ‘I consider’ to be the evidence. I was not raised in any religion or believing in God. In fact, I cannot even remember thinking about religion or God before I joined my religion during my first year of college.

Why do some people see the evidence for a religion and for God so clearly whereas other people see no evidence at all? I think that what we believe or disbelieve is determined by a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, education, life experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these are the reasons why we choose to believe one thing or another.

3) They want to...
4) They are indoctrinated when too young to fight back...
5) They never learn to critically analyse claims and beliefs..
6) They fail to avoid irrational arguments...

 

[Ella S.]

I believe that there is no God.

However, I do see evidence for the existence of God, in the sense that I can see how logical arguments can be constructed from facts to reach the conclusion that God probably exists. I merely posit that there is better evidence that God does not exist, and that these arguments are either missing pertinent information or are based on misinformation.

It is not that I see no evidence at all. I am aware of a great deal of what is often cited as evidence for God. In fact, some of those arguments used to convince me, and I think that a decent argument would convince me again. I simply go where the evidence takes me and, at the moment, it leads me to conclude that there is no God and that God might even be physically impossible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So I’ve been trying to figure out exactly what this evidence is. All the supposed evidence appears subjective, am I right? I guess there is logical arguments for god, I’m starting to read the works of Plato, who made logical arguments for god (everything is set in motion, motion has a cause, god is the cause). If they are sound I’ll have to see for myself. as of yet I am unconvinced by anyone on this site of their supposed evidence for god. We agree there is no objective evidence for god?

But the difference is the faith believer has no objective evidence for god. Objectivity should be important, when it comes to evidence, do you agree?
Maybe I’m just playing devils advocate here. I’m a theist, an auto theist. Like Plato and Aristotle, I believe my soul is a deity. I don’t know if I agree on the details, have to read more. I believe in god and the soul for personal reasons I cannot discuss here without violating rules. The evidence is subjective, to say the least.

I agree with you about objective evidence. I would argue that in order to support any claims regarding physical phenomena, objective evidence is necessary. Subjective evidence is very much more limited and insufficient to support a claim. I suppose subjective evidence might form the basis of hypotheses, but those hypotheses would require, valid, objective evidence to test them.

Others can correct me or expand on this if I am wrong or incomplete, but I see two main problems with subjective evidence. Validation and the observer effect. To be valid, evidence needs to be objectively observable, testable and reproducible. There seems no way for such testing to be conducted on the personal, subjective experience of another. Secondly, the state of mind, education, intelligence, bias, and mental health of the person having the experience can manipulate the experience and the interpretation. This observer effect is relative to time, location and the individual, further confounding interpretation of the experience. It is clearly possible that there was no physical experience at all and what is seen as evidence occurred entirely in the mind of the observer. Equally, it could be observable, but rare, unusual or unexplainable objective manifestations that are misinterpreted based on subjective bias. Someone related a story of a blender in another room suddenly turning on unexpectedly when no one was in the room to turn it on. They automatically concluded the interference of some supernatural agent as the cause while not even considering possible physical causes that were more likely. I think the unexplained element augments the observer effect to the point that some observers tend to interpret fanciful causes with the underlying intent these be considered as fact to the exclusion of other possibilities.

My beliefs are subjective, based on faith. I have no objective evidence for God, but I have had subjective experience that leads me to believe with greater faith. I cannot share those experiences and fully realize that they may be more my imagination than an actual experience. It is the burden of faith I suppose.

 

[Trailblazer]

The OP assumes choice. That did not apply to me and also not to some of my friends. We had experiences that caused us to change from being atheists.

I believe we all have free will so I think that belief and non-belief are choices, but that does not mean we can always make the choice to believe or disbelieve. I cannot choose to disbelieve because I see evidence for God and you cannot choose to disbelieve because of your experiences. Likewise, atheists cannot choose to believe since they see no evidence that God exists.

In other words, free will does not imply that we can choose to believe or disbelieve anything e want to, only that the potential is there.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that there is no God.

However, I do see evidence for the existence of God, in the sense that I can see how logical arguments can be constructed from facts to reach the conclusion that God probably exists. I merely posit that there is better evidence that God does not exist, and that these arguments are either missing pertinent information or are based on misinformation.

It is not that I see no evidence at all. I am aware of a great deal of what is often cited as evidence for God. In fact, some of those arguments used to convince me, and I think that a decent argument would convince me again. I simply go where the evidence takes me and, at the moment, it leads me to conclude that there is no God and that God might even be physically impossible.

I am certain there is a God even though I cannot prove it to anyone else. I can only explain my rationale for believing.

I see evidence for the existence of God, and the Messengers of God who have revealed the various religions throughout human history is that evidence.

I can see how logical arguments can be constructed from facts to reach the conclusion that God probably exists, but logical arguments can also be used to argue against God's existence.

I simply go where the evidence takes me and the evidence leads me to conclude that there is a God.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The OP assumes choice. That did not apply to me and also not to some of my friends. We had experiences that caused us to change from being atheists. This is captured as part of a poem by Ladinsky "rendering" of a poem of Hafiz. It goes, in part: (Golden Compass)

Come, join the courageous
Who have no choice
But to bet their entire world
That indeed,
Indeed, God is Real.

Nice poem.

Your post reminds me of the ongoing philosophical debate whether belief is voluntary The Ethics of Belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I guess you fall on the "no" side of this issue, sun rise?

 

[Trailblazer]

I do think naturalists, and religious people are prone to see what they want to see. I think the best attitude for truth seeking is to not be influenced by desire.

I agree that we should not be influenced by our desires, by either love or hate. Baha'u'llah said that in so many words:

"O My brother! When a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading unto the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth.
....... Even as thou dost witness in this Day how most of the people, because of such love and hate, are bereft of the immortal Face, have strayed far from the Embodiments of the Divine mysteries, and, shepherdless, are roaming through the wilderness of oblivion and error."
Bahá’u’lláh, Tablet of the True Seeker, p. 264

That doesn't mean that existence won't come out to be as desired, but perhaps it'll never be anything as desired also.

That is a good point. We should want to know the truth, whatever it is. We should not base truth on what we desire.

My logic tells me there's more to life than meets the eyes. My senses tell me that this life is all there is. My heart is inclined to love the idea of there being a Supreme God. The natural world tells me that life is a fringe occurrence and nature is often hostile to life, and has very little harmony in it.

I sometimes hope there is a Supreme God or many such. Nature itself has crushed that dream though. I mean if I were a creator God, I would not make such a world as this one; it's far from being a masterful creation.

If I based my belief in God upon what I want and what I think is fair, I could not believe in God, because I believe that life is unfair and nature is cruel and I don't want to believe in a God who designed that. However, I try to put my ego desires aside because I know those will only lead me astray.

 

[Suave]

I'm kind of the black sheep of a strongly fundamentalist Christian family. I take more after the video games I played as a kid (we're talking stuff like Soul Calibur and Powerstone - not Pac-Man) than I do them, but I guess it's always possible had I been born to an atheist family, I wouldn't be theist. I'm just of all beliefs different than theirs, otherwise.

I suspect we might be living in a computer simulation, because there are indications of us being simulated,

1. Scientists are already conducting simulations of rats twitching. Henry Markram and his team at the Blue Brain project having successfully simulated elements of a rat’s neocortical column, a complex layer of brain tissue common to all mammalian species. " Henry Markram at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne and his team built their model based on experimental measurements of rat brain slices. The simulation represents roughly 37 million synapses, or neuronal connections, in the brain region that receives sensory information from the whiskers and other parts of the body. Using the model, the team simulated rat whisker movement and saw similar neuronal responses to those observed in rat experiments."

Computer model of rat-brain part - Nature.

I realize a computer simulation of a rat's neocortical column is nowhere near the complexity of a computer simulation of an entire living human brain, but this does demonstrate at least a bit of progress so far being made towards an entire human brain's consciousness being simulated by a computer.

2. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.

3. This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding might be indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality. Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.
Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle.

The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code (sci-hub.se)
The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code Vladimir I. shCherbak, Maxim A. Makukov PII: S0019-1035(13)00079-1 DOI: Redirecting Reference: YICAR 10549 To appear in: Icarus Received Date: 26 June 2012 Revised Date: 31 January 2013 Accepted Date: 12 February 2013 Please cite this article as: V.I. shCherbak, M.A. Makukov, The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code, Icarus (2013), doi: Redirecting This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.

.The mathematical pattern of the number 37 being used as a key factor for conveying an Egyptian triangle might related to the gematria value of 37 appearing in the Hebrew language of Genesis 1:1.

4, Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. claims that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.
Please note the discovery of error correcting codes within the equations of symmetry is a rigorously proven theorem.

Reference: https://www.quora.com/Is-theoretica...mmunity-and-has-it-been-corroborated-by-other

Is theoretical physicist James Gates’ intriguing discovery of error-correcting codes within the equations of supersymmetry accepted within the theoretical physicist community, and has it been corroborated by other physicists?

Tristan Hubsch
, PhD Physics, University of Maryland, College Park (1987)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 1.4K answers and 1M answer views

A.: The discovery is a rigorously proven theorem.

To be precise, the (error-detecting and error-correcting binary doubly-even linear block) codes were discovered/identified within the classification of worldline off-shell supermultiplets without central charge [On Graph-Theoretic Identifications of Adinkras, Supersymmetry Representations and Superfields, by C.F. Doran, M.G. Faux, S.J. Gates, Jr., T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22 (2007) 869-930, arXiv:math-ph/0512016]. It was then proven that these (minimal) supermultiplets in turn encode the continuum of all possible worldline supermultiplets [On General Off-Shell Representations of Worldline (1D) Supersymmetry, by C.F. Doran, T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Symmetry 6 no. 1, (2014) 67–88, arXiv:1310.3258]. See also my answer to “James Gates claims that he found code in string theory. Does that imply that we live in a simulation?”

If string theory proves to be a valid explanation for the fundamental constituents of the universe being one-dimensional “strings” rather than point-like particles, then the computer code found within string theory could be a real indication of our simulated universe being controlled by God!

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I suspect we might be living in a computer simulation, because there are indications of us being simulated,

1. Scientists are already conducting simulations of rats twitching. Henry Markram and his team at the Blue Brain project having successfully simulated elements of a rat’s neocortical column, a complex layer of brain tissue common to all mammalian species. " Henry Markram at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne and his team built their model based on experimental measurements of rat brain slices. The simulation represents roughly 37 million synapses, or neuronal connections, in the brain region that receives sensory information from the whiskers and other parts of the body. Using the model, the team simulated rat whisker movement and saw similar neuronal responses to those observed in rat experiments."

Computer model of rat-brain part - Nature.

I realize a computer simulation of a rat's neocortical column is nowhere near the complexity of a computer simulation of an entire living human brain, but this does demonstrate at least a bit of progress so far being made towards an entire human brain's consciousness being simulated by a computer.

2. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.

3. This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding might be indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality. Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.
Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle.

The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code (sci-hub.se)
The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code Vladimir I. shCherbak, Maxim A. Makukov PII: S0019-1035(13)00079-1 DOI: Redirecting Reference: YICAR 10549 To appear in: Icarus Received Date: 26 June 2012 Revised Date: 31 January 2013 Accepted Date: 12 February 2013 Please cite this article as: V.I. shCherbak, M.A. Makukov, The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code, Icarus (2013), doi: Redirecting This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.

.The mathematical pattern of the number 37 being used as a key factor for conveying an Egyptian triangle might related to the gematria value of 37 appearing in the Hebrew language of Genesis 1:1.

4, Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. claims that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.
Please note the discovery of error correcting codes within the equations of symmetry is a rigorously proven theorem.

Reference: https://www.quora.com/Is-theoretica...mmunity-and-has-it-been-corroborated-by-other

Is theoretical physicist James Gates’ intriguing discovery of error-correcting codes within the equations of supersymmetry accepted within the theoretical physicist community, and has it been corroborated by other physicists?

Tristan Hubsch
, PhD Physics, University of Maryland, College Park (1987)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 1.4K answers and 1M answer views

A.: The discovery is a rigorously proven theorem.

To be precise, the (error-detecting and error-correcting binary doubly-even linear block) codes were discovered/identified within the classification of worldline off-shell supermultiplets without central charge [On Graph-Theoretic Identifications of Adinkras, Supersymmetry Representations and Superfields, by C.F. Doran, M.G. Faux, S.J. Gates, Jr., T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22 (2007) 869-930, arXiv:math-ph/0512016]. It was then proven that these (minimal) supermultiplets in turn encode the continuum of all possible worldline supermultiplets [On General Off-Shell Representations of Worldline (1D) Supersymmetry, by C.F. Doran, T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Symmetry 6 no. 1, (2014) 67–88, arXiv:1310.3258]. See also my answer to “James Gates claims that he found code in string theory. Does that imply that we live in a simulation?”

If string theory proves to be a valid explanation for the fundamental constituents of the universe being one-dimensional “strings” rather than point-like particles, then the computer code found within string theory could be a real indication of our simulated universe being controlled by God!

I've seen similarities between the universe, mathematics, computers, and even astronomy to some degree. I've thought about it before, but probably won't be accepting such a theory at this current time, if at all. I remember back in the day, someone told me their 8800GTS 640 SLI graphics cards could simulate the original moon landing videos, or some such. I had a similar computer setup, and I told him that it'd take a bit more power to do that. So that's about as deep as I've gotten into the subject in the past.

If you wish to discuss this further, we can. I'm still reviewing the data that you posted. The best way of convincing me and/or getting my attention is showing me how the data is peer-reviewed, how it stacks up, and I'd even be willing to hold conversations on the philosophy of if the world was simulated.

If you covered some of this, sorry, I'm still reading some of your post and digesting it. I just wanted to kind of respond now rather than the potential of forgetting about the thread by accident and leaving you hanging for some time.

 

[CG Didymus]

Bingo!

In a way, I think believers in a religion should be the "evidence" of the validity of it being true. But far too many people in some religions don't live their lives as if they truly believe. Then there are those that do try and find evidence. And that "evidence" is usually their Scriptures. So then they need to find evidence that supports those Scriptures as being true and accurate. And still, do those people live their lives as if those Scriptures are true? I'd almost be okay with believers if they really did live up to the high ideals of their religion. But, unfortunately, in some religions, part of living up to the commands of their God include trying to convert others, outlawing and banning other religions and scientific findings, and sometimes includes killing others and sometimes killing some of their own... when some of them break their God's commands.

So maybe, in that case, it's better just to have people that don't live by the rules of their religion, at least not the harsher ones, and don't care to find evidence. Because those that think they have evidence can become overly zealous in pushing their beliefs. So, maybe what you do is better. What exactly is an "evangelicalhumanist"? Compared to most religions, it sounds pretty good.