I was born Catholic, raised Baptist and grew up devoutly religious; saved, born again, and a frequent leader of the Sunday evening service at our church. Today, I am agnostic.

Former church-mates of mine are quite certain that I could not have been sincere if I am truly agnostic today. I have assured them, and now you, that I was as sincere then as I am now and I am as sincere as I can possibly be.

There may be a God, I don’t know, but the characterizations of God currently celebrated on planet Earth are pure fiction in my view.

Why do I say such a thing? Firstly, if God can truly do anything, why would He design a universe that cannibalizes itself at every level. Why would any omnipotent being create a system in which His greatest creations can only exist by destroying His other creations? The sadism in that design says nothing positive about a universal creator.

Secondly, if God is truly omniscient, knows all, past, present, future, He would have known from the very beginning of the pain and terror felt by every prey species and every mistreated child throughout the history of His Creations. Once again, the sadism in that behavior says nothing positive about such a universal creator.

Thirdly, if God really is omnipresent as advertised, He is an ever-present witness to all of the pain and agony, torture and death, loss and grief that He has designed into His creations. Finally, the sadism in that voyeuristic proposition says nothing positive about such a universal creator.

I do not object to anyone’s personal beliefs so long as they remain personal. I do not discourage any from their beliefs. I don’t know if it is possible to exist as a society without some omnipotent father figure somewhere in the mix. The current devaluation of the strong father archetype is having some very unfortunate and profound impacts on our ability to maintain and operate a civilized society. That is another of what I view as failures in the design.

It is not my goal here to attack or promote any belief. It is my intention to present an argument for open-mindedness. I know that is a difficult standard to maintain. It requires a constant review of one’s own feelings and information bases. It is not always a matter of conviction that leads us to separate conclusions. Sometimes it is merely a difference in point of view, or of information possessed, or of t***sient uncertainties.