One cannot deny the importance of a God. It gives everyone hope. It lets people sleep easy at night. But are we simply fooling ourselves by believing in a world where some supreme, omniscient being has control over everything, but without any scientific proof exists? 
     Imagine two people. One, a religiously devout Christian, who acts according to the will of his higher authority, who is essentially moral and virtuous. The other, a hard-core athiest, but with a strong inner-moral code, without basis on any exterior belief. The athiest does what he knows to be good, where the Christian simply follows his faith. Which, I ask you, is the better person? Which would be admitted into "heaven" first? 
     It is my belief that religions came about naturally, as man was attempting to explain nature, without any comprehension of the world of science. Imagine a time when our ancestors, walking out of their cave on a rainy summer night, suddenly is taken back by a bright flame from the sky, exploding a tree in front of him. Who could have such power? Not knowing what lightning was, this man must have been scared, and decided that the only way to insure that he was not to go next was to honor this all-powerful entity. Naturally, this man was spared. This man went back to his cave and conveyed this idea to his wife, or girlfriend, or whatever they had back then. The woman, intrigued by this possibilty, can no better explain the flame than the man, so she accepts his word on it. They tell their kids. Obviously, there was a "god" that was in charge of this flame from the sky. What about the winds? To be sure, the winds were equally intriguing to these people, so a "god" must be in charge of that too. We have just witnessesd the birth of polytheistic religions. 
     After scores of generations pass, these stories develop and grow more complex. Included is a story about a man who actually met this entity. For some reason or another, it was ONE entity. Suddenly, someone in a high place in a pseudo-government hears of this and says, "Yeah, I met him to. He told me that you should all be good people and pay your taxes." Thus, "religious is as the opium of the people" (Karl Marx). 
     Consider the possibility that I am correct, and that the world religious have been nothing more than superstition, ruling arrogance, and sheer idiocy. Has anything been lost? No. People have acted the same or better because of the religions, and extreme contributions to society would have not existed without a religious backing. Perhaps there is a God, and my theory isn't worth a dime, but it's HOW YOU ACT, not WHY YOU ACT that is important.

The Topic I want to address is that ever entertaining topic of racism!!!!! And of course the fact that it is the stupidest thing...EVER. You see I was listening to a radio talk show the other day in which the topic was inter-racial marriages, and the suppossed "EXPERT" claimed that they (inter-racial marriages) were bad because they "ROB THE BLACK COMMUNITY OF BLACK ROLE MODELS." What a load of crap. Listen, I'm so sick of hearing hypenated this, and hypenated that, it is moronic. Are we all not Americans??? Are we all not humans??? You see to say that the "Black Community" needs "Black Role Models" is yet another instance of 
separation, division, and everything that drives people away from each other as a whole, and into those little "Groups" that they associate with. What ever happened to just plain role models. Why can't I (being a white man) look up to Emmit Smith, and why can't a Black child look up to Cal Ripken. Why can I look up to Clarence Thomas, and why can't a Black person look up to Bill 
Gates. Furthermore the man went on to say that this is a horrible thing to discuss, but it must be brought into the forefront. Well let me ask this question, If you're making a big deal of this issue...oh I'm sorry, bringing it to the forefront.....Then don't you take part in the issue's bigotry? 
Going back to the original topic of inter-racial marriages which were pronounced as bad by this so-called expert, It is my opinion that if you are in love with someone then it does not matter what your background is if you're willing to work together in the loving, sacred bonds of marriage; 
anyone who says differently needs to wake up from that little racist world they are living in and realize that we are all God's children. And that's the truth.

     Both Mailloux and Scovetta make telling arguments for and against the existence of God.  However, both their views are in error.  The question "Is there a God?" is really only one aspect of much larger question :  "How can I lead a meaningful life?"  You might very well argue that we need to answer the former before proceeding to the latter, but I think that this might be an erroneous assumption.  What are we talking about when we talk about God?  The differences between a  polytheistic view and a monotheistic view are not as extreme and random as Scovetta would have you believe.  There is, irregardless of cultural boundaries, a common belief among all primitive societies that connotes a mystical connection between the human race and the universe.  This goes deeper than wishful thinking, falling rather into that shadowy realm of the collective unconscious called "intuition." 
     We instictively feel that a meaningful existence is possible ( or at least I do and like all philosophers, I must assume that my vague and baseless feelings are useful and relevant to others).  What then is its nature?  We naturally then look to the creator of that possibility for meaningfulness, God.  We are then frustrated by the impossibility of providing any logical arguments for God's existence that are not immediately refutable by equally logical arguments (or baseless arguments, if you accept Godel's theorum, which you must).  I think that it is possible to bypass to a degree the question of whether or not God exists and continue onto the next question, in much the same way that I could manipulate a mathematical equation to cause an unknown variable to drop out.  However, in this the most complicated of all equations that humans have ever attempted to solve, I will be fcorced to entreat you to accept certain assumptions which I will postulate and which are highly debatable:
            1.  Fundamentalist dogma is in error.
                  - Although it clearly states in Genesis