>>You once tried to pin this sort of spin on me, but you weren't this blunt. If there's an equivalent of the word "blasphemy" in the non-believer's world, this would be close to it. One of the major points in deciding that the existence of deities is to be irelevant is that that those who chose so take the responsibility. There's no more excuses, there's no upper hand whom you can blame when you fail, it's just you against the universe, with the rest of your kind on your or other side. How you fare is your own doing
>
>Well, it seems to me that the emphasis should be "a god".

"Existence of deities" is a purely logical notion here - the number is irelevant. If one exists, or more than one exist, the existence is there. So it's more a "zero or non-zero" question here, not "one or more" - which is also irelevant for my POV. I didn't say "one god doesn't exist" nor did I say "gods don't exist" - I just stated that I chose that the whole question of their existence in general is unimportant for me. The only way that this question matters to me is through its influence on people - i.e. why do we talk about it, and if the question was eventually answered this way or another, which group of people would become harder to live with.

>>IOW, telling a non-believer that he still does believe in a god despite his own preference, is probably the same as if someone told you that you don't, even though you may imagine you do.
>
>Perhaps, but the fact remains that every single human being ever to live is guided or has been guided or will be guided by some 'master passion'. Call it what you will but that is their 'god'.

You chose to believe that this is a fact.

>>Trying to fit myself into your definition of "master passion", I'm probably a one-member church, serving as a complete hierarchy (from the uppermost deity to the lowest acolyte) within my mind, but that wouldn't be a true picture. I don't have a master passion, unless the desire to have had a full life counts. And I surely don't serve it, far less obey. It's just something that may or may not come along, depending on too many factors, including my moods, coincidences, random events etc etc.
>
>I doubt you realize that there are many prople who worship their own minds. And you certainly do 'obey it', if indeed that is your particular 'highest internal driving force'. An honest examiniation will uncover this very fact.

:)
Just tried to imagine myself (aka my mind) as "worshipping" my mind (aka myself), and still can't find the dividing line between the worshipper and the object of worship.

Obedience... well in that case, it becomes quite ridiculous; if I do what I want to do, does that necessarily mean I can't disobey my own wish? Probably I can, but then I actually obeyed my second wish, which was to disobey the first.

Or if I was to say I'm worshipping my "highest internal driving force" (which would probably turn out to be my wish to sleep, eat, do something interesting in my time etc, not necessarily in that order), I'm probably the lousiest church on Earth. My rituals are miserable - they happen at irregular intervals, I'm not summoning the faithful (me) to gather in any sort of congregation, I'm not even preaching to them (me), not asking them to rethink their life (mine) nor to repent or stop doing that or to start doing something else - I'm just washing myself, eating, rolling my cigarettes, typing at the keyboard and that's about it. I'm not really taking myself that seriously to care to define my driving force. Unless that counts as one of the deities whose names must not be uttered?

So let's say you win - you've come up with a definition that anything can fit, which probably tells more about its total lack of precision, which in turn makes it quite useless.

Hey, how about defining it as the wish of "what do I want to make of my life"? Well, that may count, except that I'm better off than you. I'm shifting my gods as time passes, choosing goals which can be achieved, and inventing new ones as I approach the completion of old ones. I'm definitely not stuck with the one I have to share with innumerable other people, it's custom tailored for me and isn't worn out after centuries of use.

>It could be nothing more than run-of-the-mill hedonism. In that case you (and your desires) are the 'master passion' of your own life. If this is the case it willbe found to be utterly empty at some point.

Hedonism as l'art pur l'art is pointless, but that's more of a psychological thing. Enjoying life - that's a different matter, but then it can't be limited to the classic traits of hedonism. I personally don't feel pleasure in many things unless I know I have done my share of work; it's my privilege that I enjoy the work most of the time :).

>Now, you may 'feel' a sense of resentment that someone would 'dare' to label you. I have no desire to make you feel badly but the fact remains that all of us fit within some label or another.

Forget the quotes around the word feel. It really ticks me off. You're basically saying that I'm not what I think I am. The only resemblance between faith and the principles I'm using to rely on is that I'm really not questioning them all the time. But I never had to do the leap of faith and to promise myself that I'll believe in them forever and never question them. My principles are on permanent probation, and whenever any of them may prove to do harm, it will be rethought. No dogma, nothing permanent. Panta rhei.