₦airaland Forum

trekkie:
deceive yourself
so de sade is now a philosopher? he was a pervert
i Snort with laughter.
health benefits of nudity? so we now detect "bosom cancer" by sight? wonderful i guess then the mammographs have been phased out then
cervical cancer prevented by air circulation? last i checked the main source of air in the body is the nose and what does that have to do with the wearing of clothes or are the unclothed women walking around, sitting or standing with their legs spread wide? do you know where the cervix is located?
no one opposes nudity just public display of,  which you affirm
nudist "churches" ? are these based on the bible or the vedic literature you quote so copiously?
do, oh i give up!  *leaving this ridiculous thread in disgust*

ps
i am off to start the first nudist political party in nigeria. watch for our convention on c-span 

De Sade was a pervert, that is why I cited him as example. Did you miss the context?

No, mamograms are not phased out but how many routinely go for them in developing countries? In any case, whatever health benefits may be accruable from nudity are not its principal objectives so that is a moot point. It is simply a cultural practice. It was practised in Africa before the coming of Europeans. Some of them called tribes barbaric for practising it and with a what result? There is a reported case of a soldier who died in Sierra Leone from "heat apoplexy" for insisting on his sort of clothes in the smoldering heat.

The unclothed church was convened by a group of nudist Christians based on their freewill. They are people who see nothing with nudism, neither should you. But that is your prerogative. It is a matter of self expression. It is about going back to the state you truly are. Do you deny the words of Christ in the Gospel of Thomas?

trekkie:
deceive yourself
so de sade is now a philosopher?
i Snort with laughter.

No. He always was. He wrote novels and philosophical treatises. Third rate? Maybe. A philosopher, still. Not the issue here, though.

It is possible to look at the unclothed form of a fellow human being and simply admire the beauty. It is about the beauty of the person in a nak.ed state. The way you really are. Without having sex or trying to be sexy. Without cute clothes, fancy lingerie, make-up or hair style. Without suggestions. Just you, nu.de as God made you. Call it Simple Nudism or Pure Nudism. Can you think of anything more natural?

But the mere suggestion of nudity, much less, the sight of it, provokes violent expressions of outrage from many, not least people of the faiths. To those who are at home with nudism, this revulsion at nature may defy logic. But some insight can be offered as to why this is so. We will come to that presently, but first let me define what nudism is and what it is not.

Nudity exists in two forms: art and life. It exists in art forms such as photography, sculpture, painting and theatre. It also exists in human form such as people sunbathing at nu.de beaches and resorts. A photograph of an unclothed girl sitting on a chair and smiling is nudism. A picture of two people having sex is not nudism, it is p.or.no.graph.y. (That is, of course, at the basic level. For a photograph or any work of art can constitute p.or.no.graph.y if there are lewd gestures. It can even portend more than p.or.no.graph.y, as anyone familiar with the works of the French philosopher Marquis de Sade will attest. Whereas a picture of the sexual act can indeed serve the decent purpose of being a specimen for some scientific endeavour, or a tool for helping people improve their sex lives. Many would place the body of work based on the Kama Sutra in the latter category.) Nudism is not p.or.no.graph.y. While nudism can build up, p.or.no.graph.y tears down, for it sows desires that ought not to exist and may not be quenchable.

A nu.de photograph can either be art or ero.tica. It is art when its objective is simply that: Art. On the essence of art, there is no consensus in philosophy or art psychology as to whether it is the pleasure of aesthetics, the expansion of the human spirit to novel experiences, or the education of the human mind in humanity. It is ero.tica when its objective is to stimulate sexual desire. There is nothing wrong with that since there is nothing wrong with sex, intrinsically. Both Art and Ero.tica are outside the purview of what I call Simple Nudism or Pure Nudism – the primary objective of which is to forward and celebrate the human person and her (or his) beauty.

There are two reasons why anyone would oppose nudity: her religion, or his inborn tendency or operational principle. Religious opposition to nudity is principally a matter of interpretation. It is also quite understandable. But the reason many oppose nudism would be the latter. I think of relevance here will be the classification of the three gunas that constitute the fundamental operating principles or tendencies in nature in classical Vedic literature: tamas guna, rajas guna and sattva guna.

Generally destructive, the tamas guna are divinely excommunicated from joy. A guna tamas will bend over a flower, not to admire it, but to expel the contents of his nostrils on it. This is the kind of person that has no worries about stealing from his employer or lying except the possibility of getting caught. His sexual passion is uncontrollable and when it seizes him, he can do anything to satisfy it. To this person, the sight of nak.ed body sets off a violent palpitation or perspiration. Sex is filthy, and so is the nak.ed body. And so they use filthy words to describe the sexual act and body parts. These people live constantly in condemnation.

For the rajas, the look of a beautiful nak.ed body is a sign of sex only. Here we are not talking about the animal lust of the tamas who see sex as a means of satisfaction of the self, but sex as something of enjoyment for two. The rajas are capable of appreciating beauty and harmony.

The sattva guna will see the natural beauty of the nak.ed human body as nothing but beauty to behold, and attunement to nature and subtlety. A sight that offers a possibility to advance in the spiritual part and get closer to God. There is zero sexual stimulation and no thought of intercourse. This is something people of the rajas and tamas cannot comprehend. Why? Because “to the pure, all things are pure.” (Titus 1:15)

Beyond the three guns there are more spiritually advanced people who will appreciate this beauty but will not contemplate it for long. How I value such elevated souls.

The majority of people who swim and sunbathe on nudist beaches, the majority of parishioners who attended that nu.de church service in Amsterdam, do not relate it with sex. They just seek oneness and harmony with nature and people, they seek tenderness and simplicity. Sexuality here is replaced by a respectful, tender and fond attitude toward fellow human beings. This is something many cannot understand. But there are masters who believe that the attainment of this emotional state is important in spiritual development. Jesus the Christ seems to agree with this. “When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and ‘trample’ them, then you will see the Son of the (eternally) Living One.” (The Gospel of Thomas, 37).

There are health benefits to nudity. The body of many is only seen by them and their partner who may not be adept at observing physiological changes. If the world were nu.de and everyone saw everyone imagine how many cases of bosom cancer would be detected early. Cervical cancer will probably reduce due to the circulation of air through the body. And everyone would be encouraged to observe proper hygiene.

Nudity is a human right. But you cannot remove your clothes on the streets because there are many who will be harmed thus. Thus, while I do not think a government should be so big it regulates such matters, I believe there is a case for covering up properly when we go out in public places, particularly in such a society as Nigeria. For nudity can only be practised in the presence of like minds, of those who can handle it. In many countries there are nu.de beaches, hotels, resorts and even a village in France. There are nu.de events, and even nu.de churches – they had one in Amsterdam but mob threats forced further services to be cancelled. These are the places to practice nudity. There are no nu.de resorts in Nigeria. This is understandable – societies evolve and African societies are not prepared to handle such as of now. Maybe in another 50 years. Since, as already established, the nudist lifestyle is not something everyone can handle, either because of their religious inclination or emotional state, this write-up is not an invitation to remove your clothes.

@Deep Sight
I agree his style was brusque in the manner people like to attack those they see as "religionists" around here. I do not think he meant YOU were non-rational but was stating what he thought is pervasive in religiosity. Just how I saw it - your perception of it may be more accurate, of course.

@akered
Hi Doc. I thoroughly enjoyed that write-up you did on Rationalism in The Guardian in 1998 and the follow-ups by Tolu Ogunlesi and Leo Igwe. Any tips on how one gets to join the NCI?

^^^ I think he was engaging in rhetorics about the observability or lack of it the spiritual, and not attacking your person. A materialist approach to spirituality.

jagunlabi:
Does it really matter?We get too hung up on labels . . .

Not the label, brother. A god said to be one with nature, or one with his creation (We might call it "Spinoza's God" sounds diluted to me.

Mr Kay17, You have been saying the same thing since forever in different threads.

Kay 17:
is not the question of the sanctity of an individual's beliefs

If you have a basic understanding, you would have long realised that those you describe as confused have a good grasp of this fact while you have not begun to learn the basics of it.

Kay 17:
but one of reality. the identity of God must be ascertained before his existence is confirmed. myjoe , you have simply invented gods and crafted lives for them. its all mere speculation.

What is your apprehension of reality? Take the floor and enlighten us. No, you wont. Obviously you are an atheist because you think atheism is cool. You think religious folk are dumb, those who question dogma are confused, while you, the atheist, is the best thing since Einstein even though you have zero standards of proof for yourself. Go on with our delusion if it makes you happy. Sorry I already wasted bandwidth around here. Good day.

^^^ Sounds a bit like pantheism, but I may be wrong?

^^^ Will do. PC I am using right now has no audio. Will move to another one later and watch them.

^^^ Thanks for your explanation. Where do you place God in this?

@OP

I will heartily recommend Mansions of the Soul, by H. Spencer Lewis. It at once addresses the questions of the existence of God as well as Karma. It makes a lot fantastic claims you can go and verify on your own.

jagunlabi:
There is another way of looking at this.If the socalled "supernatural" is actually the natural state of human beings that they have deviated from, then one can easily understand why we are hardwired to return to that state.
I personally believe that there is nothing like the supernatural.But there are only two states of being available to us; the natural state, and the subnatural state.
We humans are living the subnatural state and our natural state has become the supernatural to us.This is why it will seem that we are hard wired to the supernatural because what we are trying to do is return back to our natural state which seems supernatural to us in our present subnatural state.
We want to return to who we truly were before we deviated or "fell from grace", as is put in the religious scriptures.

This is heavy. What exactly is your "natural state"? Who is (or are) there right now? How did we fall from it to the sub-natural state? Are these states material or metaphysical?

mazaje:
I think I will say that people are wired to make things up and present them as explanations to things, events or occurrence they see around them but are unable to explain. If you look at the supernatural entities you will see that the concept it self varies from culture to culture depending on the way of life and thoughts of the people. At some points these supernatural entities were literal beings doing literal things and they could be bargained and negotiated with through religious ceremonies to gain material results. . . . . At other points they were more disembodied energy forces that ran the world in a manner that only marginally noticed humans. . . .  At other points, they were figurative concepts useful for keeping the masses pacified, but not taken seriously by any educated people. . .  At other points, they were different things.

Personally the supernatural is just a made up concept to explain why we can't understand something that someone wants to posit. [/b]Theists can and do define and apply attributes that are adhoc and unverifiable. That's why there are so many different interpretations of what a god is and what it thinks. We are not wired to believe in the supernatural. . .We just have cultures that were formed around that concept. . .That concept is fast disappearing in some developed parts of the world. . .

Thanks, mazaje. Your analyses are always replete with clarity and brilliance. May I ask what is your take on [b]revelations and the religious experience?

I think you hurt the lady, Bawo, and I would apologise.

^^^ Kids use the streets, Bawo.

Sagamite:
Mate, if it can be proven that you commited an homosexual act then you have hurt the sensibilities.

So it is OK for 2 consenting adults blah blah blah to do whatever, they should just make sure it is not proveable.

It is not a crime to be homo, it is the act that is against the law.

So we agree to some levels.

It is not about provability, Mr Sagamite. The state has no business interfering in homosexuality. Those whose sensibilities are hurt that homosexual acts are being committed in private are meddlesome and intolerant. They will grow out of it just as whites in Paradise City, Fla, have grown out of having their sensibilities hurt by the presence of a black man in their paradise, or folks in Alabama by the sight of people of different races getting married.

JeSoul:
I know oh my sister, I unwittingly injected levity into the thread with that title. I have learned my lesson lol.

Want to know what I think of the title? That you are an advertising genius! Actually there is nothing wrong with it. Coming from a Christian, it ought to be obvious that the words are used metaphorically, but I know some people will not see that. Happens all the time.

^^^ I think the person that did that sculpture is good.

The man, Gough, got it wrong. And so have you, Sagamite. Nudism is a fundamental human right. You can stay unclothed inside your house, or in the presence of like minds - that is why you have nudist resorts, nudist beaches, hotels, etc. By going unclothed on the road, he was set to cause "harm" by hurting the sensibilities of people who do not subscribe his chosen lifestyle. He was infringing on the rights of others.

Comparing this act to homosexuality is misguided. Whatever I think of homosexuality, the state has no right, whatsoever, to interfere in what two consenting adults (yeah, you've heard that before!) choose to do in private. However, when homosexuals choose to go out of the closet and walk into Ikoyi Registry to get married, it becomes a public act comparable to Mr Gough's action. Most African societies are not prepared to handle that and people are likely to be harmed from the amount of hurt they will feel from seeing two men getting married and openly practising homosexuality. It would be understandable if the state intervenes in this case. If the state chooses to concern itself with what adults do in private, Big Brother will only promote intolerance and mass-hysteria.

godseyi:
One major problem in this country is that we understand too much English. I'm trying to imagine how much time this guy took to fish out these heavy duty grammar:

Have been reading this guy since the 90's. He likes to hear the bones breaking.

Mpele: Nigerians cannot hold SA hostage because they played a role in their struggle against apartheid.

I agree. While the Nigerian government rendered assistance to the South Africans during apartheid (something young Mpele dismisses as serving tea to Mbeki in Lagos), it must be borne in mind that the South Africans liberated themselves. They were the ones who were hunted down on the streets of Soweto and either gunned down or jailed. I personally find statements like "we liberated them" to be highly embarrassing. Nigerians have no right to latch on to whatever sacrifices we made. While I think South African leaders themselves ought to include it in their history so their youths know, I believe the time has come to move on.

Mpele: SA was very welcoming to Nigerians until we started exporting our crime, faud their, which obviously will breed resentment.
Nigeria chased Ghana nationals back in the 80's, which was a state sactioned policy. what moral right do we have for accusing SA of xenophobia.

SA was never really welcoming to foreigners at any point after the demise of apartheid. From day one, they resented Mozambicans "invading" their country to look for jobs now the country was theirs. In my opinion, this is quite understandable and can happen anywhere, especially among the less educated segment of the population. That is what the BNP does in Britain. The fact that this often plays out as bloodshed all over the South African Republic should be a matter of concern to the leaders of the country. What happens in civilised societies to cut down on illegal immigration is that the government tightens border control. Those found for crime are prosecuted and jailed. There are Nigerian criminals in Western countries just as there are foreign criminals in Nigeria. They are not setting up mobs and we are not. And the unfortunate Ghanaian incident was carried out by a misguided government looking for scape goats in hard times. It was carried out in an orderly fashion. No Nigerian mobs killed, maimed or burned Ghanaians. Comparing it to the South African situation sounds desperate.

Mpele: You guys accuse the SA of being slaves to the whites, but at least they fought the unjust aprtheid system.  In Nigeria, we are slaves in our own country held hostage by a very 'corrupt cabal'. Instead of quarelling with SA, let's fight our war and restore our nation to it's former glory.

The highlighted part is a shocking misinterpretation. Nobody, to my knowledge, is accusing anyone of being slaves. Whoever does is myopic. In my opinion, the white South Africans are Africans and are welcome. If you read my op, the only reference I made to whites is in the area of respect for Africans. In case Mpele and whoever wrote this piece find that hard to comprehend, let me reiterate it: In the understanding of the everyone, South is far ahead of other African countries in terms of infrastructure because white brains did it. Therefore, anything achieved by South Africans will always be seen as the achievement of the whites. The black will only start gaining respect when countries like Nigeria wake up and pull themselves out the doldrums to show the world that blacks can do it and colonialism and apartheid were unnecessary. This assertion of mine is far more an indictment on Nigerians than on any other people.

Mpele: I am tired of fellow nigerians wasting their energy quarelling with SA, when our country is on the verge of becoming a failed state. We boast of being 'gifted, educated' etc, yet our country is on a precipice.
Where is our President? We are spineless at even demanding he resigns, but come online to boast of being the 'most intelligent blacks'. Please, give me a break. Let's stop living a LIE.

It is not my view that Nigerians are uniquely gifted. All that claim is nonsense. It is to declare it all as nonsense and learn from Mpele that I opened this tread.

Mpele: Let's leave South Africans alone and direct the energy at solving our multitude of problems.

Thank you. Nobody is obsessed with South Africa. Personally I would not live there under apartheid or after it. If I was born there, it would have been different. But Nigerians have a right to want to live there and the South African government has a right to use their discretion in refusing. The fact that you are culturally disinclined to emigrate (for whatever reason?) will not stop foreigners from coming to your country. If Nigerians enter illegally, the government has a right to deport them. But the South African mobs have no right to attack them. And it is wrong for Mpele to come here and spew hatred.

Personally I have nothing against anyone and am not a part of "my country is better than yours". It isn't. And I think Nigeria, as it is currently, sucks. But I should not be to afraid to tell Mpele some home truths for fear he might accuse me of hating his countrymen. The problem South Africans have can be summed up in one word. It was what drove the Afrikaners in their apartheid project. Shortly after apartheid, I borrowed from a friend who returned from the country a copy of one of their magazines, and I saw it there, being nurtured with zeal all over their media. A part of it can be traced to the Christian Protestant reformer, John Calvin. I guess when I have some time on my hands I will open a tread to address it.

A beautiful girl is betrothed to a shepherd boy. A shepherd boy. A powerful king catches sight of her and make love overtures to her. She replies that she is already in love with a shepherd boy. Not used to being turned down, the randy king would have none of it. But he does not deploy policemen. He deploys poetry! This is the setting behind the Superlative Song, which is Solomon’s.

In the Song, we read the erotic exchanges between King Solomon and a young virgin, the Shulamite girl, and between the Shulamite and her inamorato, a shepherd boy. We also read the encouragement given to the girl by her brothers, who ask to know if they can bank on her chastity. She replies that she is chaste, and her brothers offer her a reward:

“If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver: and if she be a door, we will inclose her with boards of cedar.” 8:9

Early in the Song, we learn that relationship moves from courtship to consummation:

“As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.” 2:3

The Shulamite girl’s commitment to her shepherd boy is exemplary. She is not ashamed of the shepherd and lets the whole world in on it. When he delays in returning from his field she goes all out to find him, asking the women of Jerusalem to join her search. She sees wealth and glamour all around Solomon. But in her eyes, not even the most beautiful of flowers under the morning dew can compare in beauty to her beau. Hear her description of him:

“My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.
His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven.
His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set.
His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh.
His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires.
His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.
His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”
[/i]5:10-16

And does he return her affections. He does, and he is not to be outdone in poetry:

[i]“Thou art beautiful, O my love, as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners.”
Turn away thine eyes from me, for they have overcome me: thy hair is as a flock of goats that appear from Gilead.
Thy teeth are as a flock of sheep which go up from the washing, whereof every one beareth twins, and there is not one barren among them.
As a piece of a pomegranate are thy temples within thy locks.
There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.
My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.
Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?
I went down into the garden of nuts to see the fruits of the valley, and to see whether the vine flourished and the pomegranates budded.
Or ever I was aware, my soul made me like the chariots of Amminadib.”
6:4-12

Here is the verse I first came across in the Song as a teenager and have thought about ever since:

“Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame.” 8:6

This Song is full symbolisms: humility, friendship, loyalty, contentment, love over material things, and many others. It has been described by Christians as the relationship between Christ and his church or between God and man; by Jews, as the relationship between God and Israel. A lot of inferences can be drawn from the Song of Songs which is Solomon’s, but there is not a doubt that it was written by men who practised poetry in love and love in poetry long before Valentine’s day was invented.

imhotep:
@DeepSight
May I inquire as to why you are asking this question?

Because your esoteric articulacy reminds him of a grandmaster, particularly one, who, according to the Bhagavadgita, has transcended the three gunas of Ayuveda. Just kidding.  Your do sound like some Buddhist adherent. Are you?

And your ID reminds me of Amonhotep (Akhenaton). Could that be the one your are an incarnation of?

@Deep Sight.
I thought you would respond to my last response to you.

Kay 17:
myjoe is in the similar wagon of confused minds with deep sight and krayola.the childhood conditioning has not worn out. prove that subtle god of yours.the absence of the almighty is  conclusive.

You are a parsimonious illiterate who is incapable of thinking. If not, tell us how you concluded. No, you won't. All you do is grab people and demand they tell you now how they believe.

JeSoul:
^Montelik, Negro bleeds black  almost everything is about race 


Reid's choice of words was obviously very very poor and unfortunately touched on a very sensitive issue, esp within the black community. However, I don't think that should be a final indictment that he is a racist. We've all at one point used unfortnate words in regards to another race, if we'll be honest about it.

The problem for the democrats now is that to defend him (even though it is the proper thing to do), is to be hypocritic. These same benefits-of-doubt and "look at his entire career" were not extended when the offenders where Republican. AA's have already shown that they are very unforgiving when it comes to perceived instances of racism.

I've been waiting on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to whip up one of their usual protests in Brooklyn or Harlem. But I won't hold my breath, the offender is a democrat and will get a free pass.

Brilliant analysis, JeSoul. I, too, have been waiting for the outrage!

[quote author=sleek_p link=topic=372432.msg5224301#msg5224301 date=1262269404]At 86 the man try sha. Lol!!![/quote]Yeah. He should be in the Book of Guinness.

idiopathic:
I am sure you must be kidding by referring to Nigeria as the giant of Africa.

I did not refer to Nigeria as the giant of Africa. I find that phrase repulsive. When you read, note the general flow of the prose and pay attention to the punctuations marks.

morpheus24:
You are bordered by all black African countries. How can you choose not to live amongst them or even consider that their politics and economical activities are not intertwined with yours . You really do exemplify the ignorance and isolationist thinking the afrikanners subjected you to.

The reason you stay home is because you lack the ability to survive outside your borders cause you are not condition to do so, are unfamiliar with the workings of global markets and how factors of labor move to where they are most efficient and lastly you just got the country back so why would you want to leave something you are just familiarizing yourself with.

l[b]ets assume your statement were true. Why is it there are a high percentage of young White SA's emigrating to Canada, The UK and Australia. If conditions are so condusive for them they would stay with you and build your beloved as well Don't  you think?[/b]

Brilliant!

I think this guy has a one-dimensional viewpoint. I find his utter misapprehension of op strange, thinking anyone has any problems with whites being in his country. I never saw more myopia!

JeSoul:
Perhaps its because too many religionists handicap themselves with their supposed faith? instead of allowing it to spur them on towards greater things? It becomes their crutch and excuse for doing nothing. Instead of going out and working to better themselves, they pervert its purpose and cry to the skies all day long for a divine quik fix. We see this happening on the daily in Naija.

This is true. And quite obvious. But you may notice I did not say, "How come the 'godless' ones are the most advanced people?" but said, "How come the most advanced people are the 'godless' ones?" I asked this question particularly in the context of Deep Sight's query.

JeSoul:
Or perhaps it is true for everyone, but the society they're born into[i] indoctrinates [/i] them out of that knowledge? I have no doubt the societal/religious circumstances one is born into determines largely in which direction they will believe.
Do you personally believe that we're programmed to naturally believe in God? (not talking about religion now, just the concept of God).

This is a serious question. Honestly, I think we may only end up making assumptions based, of course, on our deep seated biases, but I will try to be objective. The Akan of Ghana have a proverb that you do not teach a child about God. That is, the child will sense God himself. But we cannot say that is what actually happens among the Akan since, like other African kids, they are fed, along with their Cerelac, Jesus or Allah, or, before the foreign religions came, the gods. This indoctrination usually happens before the child reaches the age of memory or reason and he has no memory of his first exposure. I have read interviews with atheists (non-African) who say they don't recall ever believing in God. A particular atheist says he first came across the word in a book at age four and asked him mother what it meant. After listening to her explanation he told her he thought it was like the stories in children story books and asked if anyone really believed all that. Note that this kid was not raised an atheist. His parents simply did not talk about the subject. [s](Maybe we should all adopt his parents' attitude and leave the subject of God till our kids are old enough to process it. I think religion will die and what a boring world we will have!)[/s] Still there are psychologists who say that illogical belief in the magical and supernatural is wired into our brains, selected during evolution to help humans form close-knit societies and further the course of survival. Napoleon Bonaparte may have been making a similar point when he said religion is useful as a means of social control.

Consider this: a Moslem cleric in Saudi Arabia told a European that every child is born a Muslim. Every other religion, including atheism, he said, is learned because Islam is the true religion and every child born has it programmed into its brain.

American Evangelical Christians have often made similar claims. You are born a Christian.

There are two things I know. (1) It is not the case that all men are programmed to naturally believe in the Supreme God. (Some may be born with high intuitive or clairvoyant abilities and they are a different matter and would be a tiny minority.) (2) The human mind is highly receptive to the idea of the supernatural. This is understandable considering that there is so much around us we cannot make sense of. This is what is exploited by the environment you are born into to make you to revere rats, worship the sun, make sacrifices to Sango, believe in Allah and the prophet from Arabia, or call Jesus. It is possible, however, that we are programmed to naturally believe in the supernatural, a realm higher than us, the concept of God. Of this, I cannot be certain. Ultimately, belief in God is, like many other important beliefs, an act of faith - faith that should be rooted in personal experience.