Expulsion

The strongest argument against the existence of God is the wanting so much that God exist. It contaminates the good sense God gave me. I am unable to objectively evaluate and realistically extrapolate my observations, and I am continually tempted to stop searching for answers, because my emotional response to questions about how things work is that I am challenging God; I am questioning His judgment by subjecting His creation to my criticism.
There is also the naming problem. It was once believed that knowing the real name of something gave one power over what was named, even God. He could be conjured by calling His name. This is more obviously true of what one understands; the better one understands God’s creation, the better understanding one has of how something works, the more able one is to control it. In a sense, God is being challenged. It is, therefore, more pious to accept without question what is. The believer must limit his view of God’s creation to an appreciation of that creation rather than attempt to understand how it works. To see God’s creation through God’s eyes, one must become an atheist.
This has become a significant problem for the religious community; one must remain ignorant to maintain one's belief system, or one must reevaluate constantly one’s beliefs in relation to each new understanding of God’s work. But belief is often fundamental to one's relationship with God. There are promises that have been made — paradise, eternal life, ultimate punishment of one's enemies — which justify one's commitments to family, community, and God. Why would anyone serve a God without rewards? And these rewards are an integral part of one's beliefs, as well as the responsibilities to which one is committed to earn these rewards. The argument might be made that God looks at who you are rather than at what you are or what you do, but this is misleading because in order to be a believer “you must believe…,” or “you must do…,” and to receive the rewards you must be a believer.
To resolve these outmoded and often ridiculous and self-destructive beliefs and behaviors, religious institutions must reevaluate the basics of their approach to the Almighty. There are, however, no premises, no axioms, and no postulates for an objective evaluation of one's religious inclinations. I am an evolutionist and an atheist, and I have a relationship with God based not on belief, but solely on faith. I can find no justification for the existence of God in His creation. In fact, the contrary appears to be true. God’s creation, from my perspective, works better without His interference and without his presence. (I do not mean to suggest that I work better without His presence, but that is a completely different matter.) I would, however, as an atheist and an evolutionist, suggest a rational critique and possible foundation for the study and reevaluation of religious institutions.
For the past two decades religious groups have again begun to question evolution. Evolutionists have responded defensively but not offensively, even to the most absurd suggestions like pseudoscientific nonsense using perversions of the scientific method. It is an established practice in furthering a political agenda to look for the weaknesses of the opposition. Weaknesses are usually hidden well, but one's greatest weakness is usually also one's greatest strength, and that is what one brags about. The greatest strength of science is the scientific method of continuing doubt. If only one experiment does not have the outcome of all the others, the outcome of all the others is in doubt. Religious groups have exploited this concept by claiming that their pseudoscientific conclusions contradict those of the scientific community. And even though science has through many, many years always made religious groups look foolish when religious doctrine directly contradicted scientific discovery, an unbelievable number of people have been persuaded to accept the bogus religious doctrine, even some in the scientific community.
What is it that attracts us to the absurd? Why do we believe there is a God when the evidence is overwhelming that there is not and, based on this belief, why do we accept the claims of those even less informed than we are, and promises from people from whom we would not buy a used car? Rene Descartes said it is as if God has marked us as his creation just as any craftsman would, and that this mark is apparent in our yearning towards the Almighty. Friedrich Nietzsche said we instinctively seek an Uberman, an Overman, a Superman.
It seems reasonable that, in response to the past few decades of religious evaluation of evolution, an evolutionist should evaluate religion. From an evolutionist viewpoint, there are three instincts that have contributed to our survival that can also be associated with our religious development — the instincts of the hunted, the hunter and the herd — or in religious terminology, “heathen, pagan and atheist.” These are basic religious world views, and all other religions are various mixtures of these three pure religions.
The heathen (the hunted) blends in with his environment. To him the world is a part of him, one does what one does. There are rules to follow, and they are followed simply because they are the rules. Simple logic explains his world, and part of that logic is that an unseen world is part of the world he lives in. (Trees move because they have volition or because unseen spirits move them.) It is as it is. One interferes at one’s peril. The world is accepted as it is and what happens, happens for the best. The heathen is fatalistic. Heaven is the place he will go when he dies. It is a spirit world and it interacts with the visible world.
The pagan (the hunter) uses the world to his advantage. He believes in earning what he gets. He exploits the heathen by telling him he must do as he is told in order to protect himself from the spirits or to gain some reward like Heaven or good fortune. He tries to predict the future through signs and portents. He exploits the atheist by condemning him to Hell if he does not do as he is told or if he does not accept the current belief system or written doctrine, prophecy, or myth. The pagan is an opportunist.
The atheist (the herd, the pack) forms relationships. He thinks in terms of “us” and “them.” He sees the world in terms of good and bad; what we understand is good, what we do not understand is bad. What gives us pleasure is good, what causes pain is bad. There are those who are with us and there are those who are against us. There is no middle ground. He finds the concept of Hell appealing as a place appropriate for those not of his group. He guards the gates of Heaven from Satan’s minions. He is for family, community, country. The atheist is an organizer, a traditionalist, a follower of rules.
A simple way to discriminate among these three survival instincts is to remember: heathens believe in Heaven, pagans believe in profit, and atheists believe in affiliation. From these roots spring our many religions. The differences among these many religions sprout from the infinite varieties of mixtures of the three rational responses to our irrational (instinctive) determination to survive.

Birth of the Self

Ask me who I am, and I will tell you,
“I am a figment of my own imagination.”
Ask me who I am, and I will tell you,
“I am here at this point in time and space. Who are you?”
Ask me who I am, and I will tell you,
“ I am the water running under the bridge on which you are standing.”
Ask me who I am, and I will tell you,
“I am looking back at you through this three dimensional mirror.”
Ask me who I am, and I will tell you,
“ I am the other you are looking through to see me.”
Ask me who I am, and I will tell you,
“I was here a moment ago, but now I am still here.”
Ask me who I am, and I will tell you,
“I will be gone, and you will still be here.”
Ask me where I am, and I will tell you,
”You can see me. You can hear me. You can even touch me,
but you cannot come with me.”

Life and Death

In the beginning God created the heavens (sky) and the earth (rock), and they were motionless in the firmament. God created time (movement), and the Earth quaked in His presence, and the sky (air) tore from the solid rock storms of dust. The earth (dust) and the air (sky) spun joyous and free. But God bound the dust (Adam), spat upon it and formed of it a Golem. The air (Lilith), furious at the loss of her playmate, flung herself against the mud man to no affect. He could not be lifted. Into this barren land, whipped by a wicked wind around a man of mud, God brought forth life (Eve).
The earth sprouted plants in profusion, spewed forth animals of many shapes and many sizes and God said, "This is good." Adam (dust) and Eve (life) were now one and stood alone, for only Lilith (the wind) buffeted against them/it trying hard to be heard, but she was not. Adam/Eve was lonely, so God cleft them asunder and there were two; one more dust than life (and so called Adam) and one more life than dust (and so called Eve). Children of God, they romped and played in this land of Eden (delight), while Lilith (the wind) could only watch and moan in exasperation at her isolation.
There were two trees in this land grown for their adornment rather than for their fruit, the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. The fruit of these trees was caustic: Knowledge, poisoning the mind with an awareness of its limitations while offering the painful possibility of overcoming those limitations, and Life, poisoning the body with an awareness of its death while putting it off indefinitely. God cautioned both Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of these trees.
Lilith spent much time rustling the leaves of these trees. And so it happened one day that Eve sat beneath the Tree of Knowledge as Lilith was entertaining herself in its branches. Lilith realized that this was an opportunity to rid herself of Eve (life) and return the earth to its original desolate state, with Adam (dust) returned to her as her playfellow (dust) free to cavort with her, twisting and turning, unconfined forever. She had only to cause Eve (life) to eat of the fruit and either die from its poison or, if she did not die, offend (disobey) God, incurring His wrath that He might smite her out of existence. She whispered in Eve's ear, "See how lovely is the fruit. Surely something so beautiful must taste as good as it looks." Hearing the hissing in her ear, Eve assumed the presence of a snake and the suggestion as a friendly gesture, so she did bite into the fruit and it was indeed delicious. So delicious, in fact, that she shared the delicacy with Adam. This Lilith had not anticipated and, in panic and in an attempt to save Adam from annihilation, sought out God and confessed. God was furious, not just at Lilith, but at the careless and thoughtless actions of His children. So He sought them out.
Meanwhile the poisonous fruit began to take effect. Adam and Eve suddenly became aware that they were not the same, that there were differences between them. In a futile attempt to deny those differences, they clothed themselves in the leaves of trees. Then God called, and they saw that He was very different from either of them; so terrifying was He that they hid themselves. God, of course, found them, fearful and trembling in His pre¬sence -- His own children, no longer trustful and trusting, afraid of their creator. "What will I do with you?" He said. "By making you whole, you will not learn to live by your decisions, and so you must suffer the consequences of that which you have brought upon yourselves. By eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge you have condemned yourselves to a lifetime of learning (seeking to know) and, as you are both partially dust, you shall, in time, return to dust; but since both of you are also partially life, you will have the opportunity, painful as it may be, to leave parts of yourselves behind which will themselves leave parts of themselves behind before they return to dust. These parts will live on to thrive and survive for as long as they care for My creation."
Then He turned to Lilith and said, "Since freedom is so important to you, you shall become a creature of the night, a cool breeze crawling across the land. During the day you will meander mindless, slave to an earth that will be lifeless to you. You will become food for plants, plants will become food for animals, and all living things food for the progeny of Adam and Eve. Thus it will be."
And the full effects of the poison from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge hit Adam and Eve and they were thrust from paradise into a world no longer of leisure but full of pain, and with hard work and sacrifice necessary just to stay alive. A new life lay before them, potentially a better one but very different from paradise.

Footnote: The story above is not an attempt to rewrite Genesis so much as an example of the many myths that were available as the basis for the Genesis mythological account of creation. Contradictions in the Biblical account suggests that at least two (probably three) prior myths were combined. Consider the possibility (probability) that the person who used them was making a mythological point; one that is felt, not intellectualized.