God and Oil

From Greg Palast's expose, Vultures' Picnic:

The phrase came back to me now—and its ancient origin, Genesis 32, a favorite of us atheists. Did Professor Greenie know it?
If you've forgotten, here is the gist: Jacob was scared shitless that his brutal brother Esau, like the meaty messenger of the MSN, would beat him to death.
The Green professor looked to the safety of our British diplomatic power to protect him from his fellow Azeri, just as Jacob begged God to "stay my brother's hand." God, as usual, was silent.
In the Bible story, darkness falls and Jacob is suddenly attacked by a demon, a dark angel. They struggle all night. As dawn comes, Jacob, unvanquished, won't let the attacker go—until the dark spirit, the dark angel of Jacob's own fear and guilt and complicity, agrees to bless him. This was the blessing: The Angel told Jacob he wouldn't be Jacob anymore. From now on, his name would be Israel, that is, "He who has wrestled with God." Then Israel/Jacob crossed the sea to the land of Edom, to confront his brother without fear.

Faith and Childhood's End

Arthur C. Clarke on faith,  from Childhood's End:

"Profounder things had also passed. It was a completely secular age. Of the faiths that had existed before the coming of the Overlords, only a form of purified Buddhism-perhaps the most austere of all religions-still survived. The creeds that had been based upon miracles and revelations had collapsed utterly. With the rise of education, they had already been slowly dissolving, but for a while the Overlords had taken no sides in the matter. Though Karellen was often asked to express his views on religion, all that he would say was that a man's beliefs were his own affair, so long as they did not interfere with the liberty of others."

"Perhaps the old faiths would have lingered for generations yet, had it not been for human curiosity. It was known that the Overlords had access to the past, and more than once historians had appealed to Karellen to settle some ancient controversy. It may have been that he had grown tired of such questions, but it is more likely that he knew perfectly well what the outcome of his generosity would be…"

Clarke on Theism and Science

Arthur C. Clarke on theism and science, from Childhood's End:

"You know why Wainwright and his type fear me, don't you?" asked Karellen. His voice was somber now, like a great organ rolling its notes from a high cathedral nave. "You will find men like him in all the world's religions. They know that we represent reason and science, and however confident they may be in their beliefs, they fear that we will overthrow their gods. Not necessarily through any deliberate act, but in a subtler fashion. Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor, but they have few followers now. The Wainwrights fear, too, that we know the truth about the origins of their faiths. How long, they wonder, have we been observing humanity? Have we watched Mohammed begin the Hegira, or Moses giving the Jews their laws? Do we know all that is false in the stories they believe?"

An Agoristic Agnostic

I have come to a position on issues of faith and religion that presents me with a perspective that while I can not disprove the existence of gods, those of faith inversely can not prove the existence. It is a matter of personal belief, not science, and those personal beliefs are justifiable, as they have no bearing on the lives of others, at least when religion is a personal experience and not an institution. While I do not believe in gods, I also respect the beliefs of others to the extent that I will not exercise a forceful position toward them in an attempt to change their views, just as I expect the same mutual respect from them in regards to my views. This does not preclude potential debate or discourse on topics of faith, but facilitates the respectful and beneficial act of discourse.

On matters of society, I apply my agnostic views to the state, likewise seeing that the state does not exist, which promotes my view toward agorism. There is no state. There are only buildings, documents, people, and ideas. And all acts "on behalf" of the state are merely individual acts toward a common goal. This is where I find the idea of collectivism flawed, because individuality is a strong human trait, and we each think and act in our own interest, even when we are working together for mutual benefit. Yet my worldview is not exclusionary, as I respect the individual choices of others to work together to resolve society's problems. I am even prone to the idea that government can produce positive results, but I can only support a government that does not exercise the use of force, or prevents individuals from exercising natural rights.

A violent state only promotes individual acts of violence as a result. Government can not abate violence through edict or fiat, but through example, just as a parent to a child. By participating in or promoting violence, central government only encourages individuals to take the same positions.