Atheism isn't a belief?

Thanks. Somehow I think I'll need it. Truth. It's a much-bandied-about word, but one to which we don't often get truly exposed. When one is a child one takes many things to be true. As you grow up, truths become grey if not outright falsehoods. There is no Santa, mammy and daddy aren't the happy loving couple like you see in the Waltons, everything doesn't end happily ever after. As you grow some more you come to learn that things which you are constantly being told are true are in fact not. Fancy houses, nice cars, successful careers don't lead to the kind of happiness that the world (and it's army of advertising execs) led you to believe. Happiness of the quality you feel should be available to you - (knowledge of which is used as a lure by said execs). You will be told too that Man came from Ape or Man came from God only to discover that Ape > Man is anything but as clearcut as National Geographic told you it was and that Father O'Reilly is up in court on child abuse charges. Your sports heros, whose achievement you cheered (and shared) turn out to have had their performance chemically enhanced or beat their wives. Truth gets grubby. It always seems to have a ..."but" attached. Truth is rarely truth. Truth is usually some or other shade of grey. The question of correct (or true) answers ultimately is not about whether a thing is true for others - no one will believe you for the same reasons that you don't believe them. What matters is what you believe is true. You are the only one who can decide this. No one can do it for you. Others truth cannot be made your own be they creation stories or talk of a causeless origin to the universe. Man is not absolute; he varies and changes his mind from day to day, year to year, country to country and era to era. For a truth to be truth it must be absolute and unchanging. It cannot not rely on man, not even oneself for it's generation.We know that man gets it wrong, man lies, man has agendas. We know this of ourself too. In short, if a truth comes from yourself or from another then it's safe enough to say that truth it is not. You can chose to lie to yourself, fool yourself, sell yourself short - but I would imagine that if one is genuinely seeking truth then one of the easiest things to do is to spot ones own deceit. Like it's not that we don't know ourselves very well is it?God is the only one who would (if he exists) be capable of telling pure undiluted truth. That's not to say he necessarily would (if he exists) - but he is the only one capable of it. A lifetime of both being deceived and deceiving others has equipped everyone on the planet in a fantastic way - even if the price was a high one to pay. It has made everyone an expert-in-waiting for being able to recognise the truth. The very exposure to lies/deceit/mistakes/agendas and all the rest, is such that you couldn't mistake truth even if you tried.The only question is, do you want to find out if it exists or not? If it ain't there you couldn't be fooled (unless you want to be). Fooled means falling for the same old stuff that you should be well able to discern by now. If it sniffs even in the least, then it cannot be truth. And boy, do some of my truths sniff (especially the stuff which might well be labelled "self-righteousness" )That's the measure I use anyway. I can't help it if that's not good enough for others. I don't wish it to be. Everyone must find out for themselves I reckon. It's is the only possible way (if any way is possible) to be sure. Sure for oneself.(edited to remove repetition/typo)This message has been edited by iano, 22-Aug-2005 07:17 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 22-Aug-2005 07:24 PM

Quesion: What is a Christian? Do you think that any of the following constitutes what it is that makes a Christian?- somebody who was born and raised in a Christian country
- somebody who goes to a Christian church
- somebody who hears the Gospel preached
- somebody who says the believe in God of the Bible
- somebody who for whatever reason calls themselves a Christian
- somebody whose parents are ChristiansThe discussion so far has revolved around what is an athiest. But for someone to be a Christian and then become an athiest, it would be handy to know what a Christian is. I would suggest that none of the above constitutes a Christian thus if the above were base from which someone moved to athiesm (or anything else) then they moved alright, but not from ChristianityThe question would remain irrespective of the apparent start position: did they ever go seeking for themselves or were they there by default due to country/parents/indoctrination etc? The action proposed involves making a decision with respect to God...and then walking a path. It implies action of some sort on the part of the seeker. The question arise as to what action this would be. Me, I don't think attending church and taking communion etc constitute seek-like action. These are things that I did as a kid but there is nothing in and of themselves which imply seeking is being done.

You say there is no reason to believe in God because there is no empirical evidence as to his existance. You accept that Science (whose basis is (or should more often be) the evaluation of empirical evidence) is not equipped to deal with the question. You seem to require empirical evidence yet feel empirical evidence isn't to be expected. Contradictory?When it comes time to take the plunge and ask a girl we fancy would she like to go out, we quite often (or at least the less handsome of us do) don't have any empirical evidence. We go on gut feeling, mind over matter, bravery and sheer want - often in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.If not the empirical route (which I don't feel will work myself) then the question is what route?. I suggest there is one. Or at least intital steps will easily spring to mind once one has made the decision to actively look. Like, it's reasonable to suppose (if he exists) that one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to get to God. Otherwise only clever people would do so. Which is not what history tells us.Furthermore, given that arrival at correct answers one way or the other is, you say, important, on what basis can athiesm assist a person in doing so. Is not a tentitive, life-long, destinationless bus ride in essence kicking the ball into perpetual touch?

---

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

In trying to assemble some reasonable attributes of a considered search for God, it is reasonable to suppose that if God exists and if it is possible to find him, then the search will need to fulfill certain criteria in order for it to be successful. This, given that all searches for anything must fulfill criteria. This is not to say that the fact that a person hasn't found God means they chose the wrong track. But it does say that any old way should not be expected to result in success (the "all paths lead to the summit" idea - for which I can see no rational basis).When athiests say they have considered the idea and rejected it, the most frequent basis for saying this is that "there is no objective/empirical evidence". What they have said in essence, is that God is not to be found on terms that they themselves decide are the terms by which God must be found. And if his existance isn't established on those man-defined terms then he doesn't (or likely doesn't) exist.
But on what basis do they think that God must meet their terms? One would imagine that if there are terms, then God has every right to have a hand in setting them. Man meeting Gods terms - not the other way around perhaps. Hence, one of the first steps I suggested in my hypothesis about finding God is to assume the mantle of humility. This, on the basis that if one was to consider for moment what one is attempting to find, then humbled they most certainly could expect to be when they got there. Packing your bags with some garments you feel will suit the destination your travelling to is no unreasonable thing to do. Humility however, is not evidenced in the language of athiests who say they have looked at the issue an decided 'No God'. Whilst there will be other garments which one might reasonably pack, arrogance is not one of them (no offence). There is nothing I've read in anything any athiest has said here, which indicates they have given so much as a moments consideration to checking whether the clothes they are wearing are suitable as travel clothes.As far as a theist goes. In a response to Purpledawn, I posed the question "What is a Christian". The same here. What is a theist? If someone believes in God on grounds of upbringing, rational thinking, gut feeling, intellectual assent, etc., then this is of the person themselves. They have not found God. Finding God is a different thing than believing he exists. I believe lung cancer exists. But the difference between believing it and finding it personally are quite a ways apart (although my search in this area is quite a well designed one). I would suggest that anybody (including theists) can become an athiest. Anyone that is except the one who has found God. I think the idea that I was trying to convey is that there is no absolute truth to be had which derives from man. If you think about it, the truths we can be sure are absolutely absolute are all things that are not of man. Take the speed of light for instance. It is a precise unchanging thing. Time, space, light all existed without mans input (although he came up with terminology to describe it). The speed of light would exist as it is without a sinner in the world. The speed of light in a vacuum is absolutely true. As is Absolute Zero. As is the fact that everyone will die. As is the fact that death is the only truly impartial democracy we know - 1 death per person irrespective of age, religious belief, sexual orientation - except of course when God decides otherwise. Absolute truth(GM) is always something that exists outside of mans influence. Thus if one experiences previously unknown, personal-to-them absolute truths (and the onus is on themselves not to manipulate grey-truth so that it becomes white (but they'd be only fooling themselves if they did) then the person can be sure that it had to come from something which is outside man. This might cause them to think God.The question of whether these 'absolute truths' can be demonstrated to others is irrelevant. The only person that can know this kind of absolute truth is the person themselves. This may sound like a dodge. But if you think about it, you would see that if absolute truths about God could be proven, then there are no more personal searches to embark on. Everybody HAS to believe a surefire proof -without meeting any of Gods criteria (should he have some). Absolute truth is not subject to the vagaries of the age. Absolute truth (one apple + one apple = two apples) will always be true. Absolute truth is totally intolerant of any error or attempt to modify it. It is the nature of absolute, that it cannot change. I was suggesting that because of it's very rarity, when someone experiences an absolute truth, it will cut through upbringing, culture, predisposition like a hot knife through butter. No fashion, culture or belief can change the speed of light from what it is. Neither would such things have any no effect on absolute truth.A person shouldn't avoid a search on the basis of worrying about what influence they might open themselves up to. Whilst basic precautions should be taken, absolute truth is sure to assuage any concern they might have that such a thing is occurring. Should absolute truth come knocking. I think evaluation of Creaton stories is biting off a little bit more than one can chew. I mentioned humility earlier as a reasonable attitude to assume. If one is a baby in a search for God and struggles to even begin to figure out what would be appropriate stepping stones to take in a search for God, then tucking into sirloin steak hardly seems conducive to the digestive system. Some warm milk would seem a better option. Humilty means what it says. It means we may have to get down off the throne in deciding what the evidence should be and how the evidence should be evaluated. Like, if God is to be found, it is not unreasonable to expect he might partake in the exercise. Maybe he has some ideas on what evidence is appropriate and how and when it will be presented. We shouldn't exclude the possiblity of his input from our search.

Okay. The person did all this stuff, but was the person a Christian? You seem to know the bible. There is ample which indicates that a Christian (bible-defined) is one who is 'in Christ' and that the old man is dead and gone - he can't be resurrected. Once in Christ and man cannot go back it would appear. Backsliding into athiesm might appear to mean the person isn't a Christian anymore but the trouble is, it is not up to the Christian (once he is one) to decide whether he will become not-a-Christian. God is the one who puts someone in Christ and it's a "once in never out" deal. Or so the bible would appear to indicatep.s. "Believing in God" is something even the demons did - and they weren't Christians!This message has been edited by iano, 23-Aug-2005 01:20 PM

I'm not rationalising Christians anyway I want. There is ample biblical evidence to show (internally) what it is that constitutes a Christian. And it's not devoutness, going to church, believing in God etc. Without getting into a Bible study on the matter, suffice to say that God (if he exists) is the one who makes somebody a Christian...not the somebody. Got any evidence to back up that assertion? The discussion has moved on a bit from the old "objective-objective-uber-alles" gig

I've reworded the quote to include the concept of absolute truth in the relevant places so as to tie this and the last post together The reason why I tried to avoid stating your first comment was to avoid unprovable assertion (unprovable because my absolute truth cannot be shown to such to another). Long before that issue arises however is the issue of examining the atheists attempt to find God/basis for saying No God/ God unlikely. Based on what constitutes a reasonable approach to finding God, we can measure the 'typical' athiest stance (no objective evidence) and see why it would appear to be ill-suited to the task at hand. I'm not sure what your second statement says. A typo I think. I would suggest that that is a overly stripped down version of a plan of attack. Given what is being looked for, I think one could fill a few pages at least on reasoned assumptions that may be made (assumptions which are okay given a starting point which suspends disbelief for the duration of the search). There is a single, but very important difference between the believer and the athiest. To whit. The believer can arrive at a destination and have incontrovertable evidence (for himself). His evidence is useless to anyone but himself. The athiest cannot by definition, arrive at a destination. His evidence is never incontrovertable evidence because all he has is the natural - which is tentitive and can be changed. His evidence is never absolute. He can never be sure that tomorrow won't reveal something that turns his thinking on his head. The believer has arrived at a destination. The quest has finished. An option has turned out to be the one. There is nothing to be openminded about. Openminded is for when you haven't arrived at a destination - thus athiests need to be open-minded (though it is understandable that many aren't because they feel close to the destination. Close... but not quite breaking out the Cuban cigars yet. An absolute truth can reside within a person but not be influenced by the person. The Christian situation for example is that on becoming such, God takes up residence within the person (given that his goal is to change the person, he sets up a site office as it were). So, personal absolute truth but not the persons own. They are as it were plugged into it but it is not them or of them The examples of speed of light etc were just illustrative that all absolute truths that we know about exist outside the influence of man. Observed by man okay - but outside his influence. That's all I mean here. We don't resolve the issue of conflicting internal (residential as opposed to self-determined) absolute truths between two people. Either both are wrong, one is wrong. Not both are right. No one can tell for sure. It matters not. If God exists, then it is not unreasonable to say that there might well be a significance in finding him or not. You could think of a few yourself I'm sure. If that is accepted, then the only thing that matters is not what other people say they know, but what YOU know. It's YOU and GOD not everybody else and God. You have to decide for yourself.How do I know I have an absolute truth? The above should indicate that I cannot prove it (although I wish I could). All I can say is that the nature and rarity (you may now agree) of it would be such that, if you tripped across it then it's very rarity would strike you. Analogy? I don't know if you've ever had an orgasm (and this analogy is not meant to indicate level of satisfaction in knowing God (it's much better that an orgasm - obviously, given that he invented the orgasm) ). Imagine though that you have had one and you then try to explain it to someone who hasn't. How far do you think you would get in truly quantifying that the pleasure and peace that can come (sic) with one is far greater than the pleasure one might get from chewing a piece of toffee. And if you had your first orgasm then nobody could argue you into thinking it was in fact just very nice toffee.It's a bit the same as the difference between man/self made truth and absolute truth. Ponder on the word 'absolute' and see the significance of it in relation to all the truths you currently hold. The word 'orgasm' is to an orgasm what the words 'absolute truth' are to an absolute truth Who knows. I only posed it in the context of searching for God. It has value elsewhere in life too. Humility (not doormat) is an attractive attribute in a person. The opposite to pride (which isn't attractive). And on a search for God, then anything which makes us 'attractive' can be no bad thing. I may be onto something there. Poeple relate best to those who are attractive. So maybe God relates (or will relate) to a person who is attractive to him. Like, if pride is unattractive to us then it is reasonable to think (in formulating our draft plan of attack) that God wouldn't like pride anymore than we do. I too think that humility is but one possible arrow we can load up into our quiver. The interesting part is to think of what others arrows there could be. The Norse story, humble, brash or otherwise is I think again, something for way down the path. Walk before running and all that.I'm reminded of a mate who said once " I know that there is something out there. It's like I've come to a spiritual roundabout. I know it's there, yu don't have to convince me of that - but how do I know which exit (Islam, Christianity, Buddism etc) to take". Maybe one needs to move down the path a bit before worrying about Norse Creation, Biblical Creation or whatever else is out there.I'd see it as getting some money in the bank first. When the time comes to spend a little then the country whose currency you have will be the country in which you can spend it. It will only work in one.

---

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

But it is not good works that save and only Christians will be saved. Plenty of people do good works. Many of them go to church. That doesn't make a person a Christian.If Hitler had truly repented before he blew his brains out (or whatever he did) then Hitler went to heaven. The thief on the cross didn't have a chance to do any good works either yet "I tell you the truth..today you will be with me in Paradise"That's the reason why the Gospel is called 'The Good News'. As far as God is concerned "our righteousness are as filthy rags" We're all stinky, manky sinners, from Mother Theresa to Hitler. Good works are not irrelevant ("be holy for I am holy") but they don't make, along with church going etc, Christians.Thank God

It's not a one-way deal. We are involved in sealing the deal. I mean, and maybe you mean too, a once-in-never-out deal (the IRA's motto incidently).If it is the latter that you mean, then I take it you hold a view that the 'deal' the is dependant on what we do (how 'good' we are) or that the deal can be cancelled if we are not 'good'. If so, then I'm afraid I can't go into it here - simply due to the fact we'd have to get into the meaning of verses like "It is by grace you are saved - not by works - lest any man should boast" vs. "Faith without works is dead"But for all those here gathered who might want to make a rational judgment for themselves one way or the other . The word Religion derives from the Latin, Re: (concerning, about, regarding) and Legio (the Law). Thus Religion is about keeping laws. "Do this, that and the other and you will be saved. Otherwise you burn".A God of the weighing scales as it were (which coincidently happens to be the basis for all world Religions)Or it's not about keeping a lot of Laws, but is about someone (Jesus - the sacrifice that God provided himself) who paid the price that you would otherwise have to pay yourself for breaking the laws -should you, of course, decide to accept Gods generous offer.A God of grace, from whence 'gratis' (= cost you nothing, costs him everything). The Biblical God in other words...If in doubt, I reckon folk should plump, on the basis of a deomnstration of sheer love alone (not to mention class and style), for the Biblical God as a basis for their initial investigation

---

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

Fair point Bob. Me and fine detail have a bit of a love/hate relationship. If you want I can modify the post and change the word 'founding' to this from the US Mint site "From Treasury Department records it appears that the first suggestion that God be recognized on U.S. coinage can be traced to a letter addressed to the Secretary of Treasury from a minister in 1861....(...by which year the US was just getting past of the diaper stage...
so I thought 'founding' would do instead )Oops Edit: from the US Mint site "Legislation approved July 11, 1955, made the appearance of "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins and paper currency of the United States. By Act of July 30, 1956, "In God We Trust" became the national motto of the United States.The devil is indeed in the detail Speaking of detail. Any view on the remaining detail of the post?Law systems based on eye-for-an-eye?The legal system of your country is informed by the idea that there are objective values for right and wrong. If I was to arrive up in court on burgalary charges and said that as a product of evolution I was responding to uncontrolled mutational changes that made me the way I am and was following survival of the fittest in propagating the species by using my mutational advantage to obtain scarce resources from those unable (evolutionarily) to stop me I don't think I'd get very far.This message has been edited by iano, 23-Aug-2005 06:37 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 23-Aug-2005 06:49 PM

---

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

Papa Admin!! Papa Admin!! Purple Dawn keeps on trying to get me to go off topic. And that's verwy, verwy bold and naughty. And I don't wanna be spanked. WAAAAAAAAAA!!!!PurpleDawn. There is no way to quickly resolve this. Surely you see that. I'll stick up a verse. You will counter, I'll show context and supporting verses. You'll show other verses and context. You might say "how do you know this is the meaning". I'll say "how do you know the church interpretation is the right one". It's a topic in itself - and one that would exhaust 300 posts in no time flat.Theres a forum for Bible Study...and this ain't it. Maybe someday eh?

You seemed to state that science is not about answering questions when empiricism is an invalid tool to apply to them. Do you agree that if God exists (as a supernatural being) then empiricism is an invalid tool to apply to him?If so then what remains (from above anyway) is "self-contradictory fundementalism". That would need a bit of fleshing out but could it have been that your non-belief or retraction-of-belief or whatever...was based on other men/womens interpretation of the bible. Or maybe their actions, as Christians contradicting how the bible says Christian 'should' behave (any similarity between s.c.f. and the Pharisees of Jesus' day?) Whatever, it's really in the end only about God and You, not God and what someone else says/does. To adopt/reject someone elses God is about the craziest/safest thing you could do. But to walk away from the issue of his existance altogether can't be rationalised from a rejection of mans actions.Empiricism = an inappropriate tool for decision making. Mans actions = irrelevant to the question of Gods existanceWhat other reasons could there be for your athiestic position What kind of evidence do you reckon would suffice? Should it be evidence that is equally comprehensible by all - so as not to exclude the less bright among us. If so the evidence would have to be fairly obvious. If obvious, then there would be no decison to make about God. Everyone would know. Thus we would have a world were everyone believed. Now God has laws. And everyone now believes in God. But no one can keep all Gods laws (believe me I don't try). The wages of sin (even one sin) is death (eternal = Hell). Thus everyone goes to Hell. Maybe God didn't want that to happen so thought of a different way? Chiroptera....??? C'mon. You're better than this Millions of believers today - despite that advancement of naturalistic explaination that no layman could hope to counter. Despite "Evolution is TRUE" beamed down our tv's every day. All the millions of people over the ages. And some very smart, thinking, critical people amongst them. The Bible is the best-selling book in the world and has been for years. (if you and only you, want the reference I'll dig it up). Growth in Christianity in countries as diverse as China, North Korea, the continent of Africa is immense and Bible supply cannot keep up with demand. Despite attempts by Communist regieme in the former Soviet Union to stamp it out, Christianity is flourishing there again........vs Neptune?? If you set off to repair your car and the only knowledge of tools and the only tools you had was a hammer and chisel then you may do quite well. You would develop techniques (as I have done when desperate) of removing and re-tightening nuts via hammer and chisel. You could use the hammer handle as a lever. The claw as a way of getting the tyre off the rim. You could scrape old gaskets from the engine block if you re-sharpened the battered chisel edge (using of course, the hammer). You could beat on new fan belts and take pride in the fact that you were getting the a jaw-droppingly-good 500 miles from each of them!!Measuring happiness and contentment without having anything to calibrate happiness and contentment against means it is impossible to measure happiness and contentment. Except as you say subjectively. Objectively you might be doing great. Or you might be doing badly. One life is all we get. It would seem rational to ENSURE we are getting the best there is, whatever best is. Lifes too precious to make guesses with (he said lighting another smoke). You might be inclined to thing that compared to others your not doing so bad but here we would have mans measure of what's availabe - not Gods. Calibrating yourself of an instrument that hasn't been calibrated?There's ways to get to God - its not impossible, it's not even difficult. But there has to be a desire. Without that, then of course nothing will happen. Objects at rest...don't get evidence. Not in science..nor anywhere else.

Science is working with the objectively verifiable evidence. It is revealing layer upon layer of a complexly interwoven universe. And every avenue it follows leads up to one inescapable question. Why? Science has done only what it was meant to do. Deliver us to that sub-destination. Why? The mistake made is not being prepared to get off the vehicle at the sub-destination.And it's not that we don't make this mistake all the time in this respect. It is human nature to mistake such things. In the Bible, God has lots of Laws. Both in the OT and the NT. People make the mistake of thinking that the purpose of the law is that we should follow the Law. They don't realise is that the Law is a vehicle, not a sub-destination. The purpose of the Law isn't that we follow the Law. The purpose of the Law is to deliver us to a sub-destination - which is simply this: to realise that we can't keep the Law. That's all. But folk don't see this, they turn the vehicle into a destination, into a Religion and think what they'll be okay if they keep the Law.Its the same thing.... "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears (listens to, heeds) my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him and he with me". Revelation 3:20. This oft used verse isn't actually referring to Jesus speaking to the unbeliever but to believers. Nevertheless it demonstrates the point clarified elsewhere. He is knocking, you have to 'hear', you have to 'open' the door - he won't come in if you don't want him (you have been given free will). And the best way to 'hear' is to take your fingers out of your ears. Seeking is the process by which your fingers are extracted from your ears. There is indeed a broader stuff going on but it is aimed at the central issue: the basis for athiesm. The rational for your athiesm is what is being investigated and in my reponses I'm trying to show that these things: empirical evidence. God not doing an objective miracle, contradictory teachings of man etc, can be shown not to be rational basis for athiesm - given that there are overriding rational reasons why these things say nothing against the existance of God.But I understand that you may think I am not being clear or am diverting all over the place. You are within your rights to think so. I can't prove i'm not. The discussion isn't obligatory and there will be no offence taken or sense of me having 'won' if you chose not to discuss it further. I would however thank you for the patience and honestly in your dealings thus far. Discussing with you is a pleasure.

Purpledawn.
There has been much that I have said (all of what I have said probably), +infinity, 0, -infinity, valleys and valley floors etc., cannot be established in fact. They are arguments that can only be weighed in the light of what an individual who reads them decides is reasonable. If someone decides that any of it is unreasonable then that's their right. I can't point to peer reviewed papers to establish any of it. It is discussion - not proof. Faith and belief....In asserting the things I do, I can only try to build a picture on the basis of what folk might think is reasonable. Their choice. In discussing what a Christian is or isn't I do the same. There is no more reason to get into a 'proof' about this particular point as there is getting into a proof about any other point. In discussion, I am not appealing to proofs I'm appealing to reason.The athiests postion can't be proven (I think), it can only be reasoned. So reason is the canvas for discussion - not proof. Maybe we will one day get into the 'proofed' definition of a Christian. In the meantime though, a reasoned, not proven defintion is all that is on offer.Posing 'Christian' is used as a means of questioning the rational behind athiesm. It is not an end in itself. Your desire to discuss what constitutes a Christian, although a valid an important one, would divert to far away from the core of the issue. It will have to wait. Sorry.

Some largely universal attributes of people?- Man has conscience. Everybody has one and whilst the level of adherance to it may vary (although by not as much as one would imagine) everybody seems to be able to judge between right and wrong - irrespective of culture or era. Every legal system in the world presumes this to be a possession of every person. No one will get off on a charge by claiming that their conscience is different than anothers. In punishing people the world takes the position that a person has the same conscience as everybody else and the same ability to obey or disobey it - but in committing a crime has chosen to ignore it.- Man is eternal. I mean by this that athiests are relatively a tiny minority in the world. One of biggest question that man has ever asked is "Where am I going". The concept of eternity is one that the vast majority of the world share from the most stupid to the most intelligent. Remarkable uniformity here. Again, specualtive models can be erected to explain it but there is not a shred of evidence that this attribute is anything but an inbuilt aspect of what it is to be human- Man fears death. And he doesn't fear it because he thinks that when he closes his eyes he is going to sleep forever. Who would fear that? He fears it precisely because he doesn't know what is there. He fears it because he senses that there may well be something on the 'other side' and doesn't know if it will be bad.The bible speaks clearly on the reasons why man has these attributes and explains why they work the way they do - in a tremendously detailed and internally supported way. Not bad for a jumble of books written by a rag tag bunch of people over many years. There isn't a book in the world which compares to it in that senseNeither is there any naturalistic explaintion for these things. People can model all they like about "carry over from our evolutionary past" but totally unfounded speculation it remains. There is not a shred of evidence that the model is a correct one. Nothing.So there you have it: some universal, consistant messages beamed into every head in the world that has ever lived. And one book which describes and predicts it all.Your definition of 'reality' is self-defined. You are entitled to do this but are not entitled to impose this definition on everybody else. If you want to assert your definition is true then the onus is on you to prove that YOUR reality is THE reality. Stating that your definition of reality is "the way, the truth and the light" is countered by a man named Jesus who said the same thing. Millions believe him and don't believe you. Your entitled to your defintion of reality as they are theirs. One thing is for sure. Both can't be right! D.S., you rest on the shoulders of giants past who embarked on the impossible and succeeded. It may be seem difficult but unless one is to try one can't comment on impossibility or otherwise. Try it. Sit down with a pen and paper some evening. Assume a Creator God exists (without picking the Biblical God) and start putting down things you could say about him based on what you see around you. You would find there is a remarkable amount. You'd fill pages - just based on reason.One thing that would happen where you to carry out such an exercise would be that God would become so big (to have been able to do what he did) that your mind would completely boggle. You may come to realise that slings and arrows you fire at him (if he existed) are as effective as trying to sink an ocean liner with a BB gun.And this only using your reason!This message has been edited by iano, 24-Aug-2005 12:28 PM

---

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)