Atheism is a belief (Why Atheists don't believe part 2)

Fortunately, God is reasonable (naturally enough, being the one that invented reason). He doesn't expect you to believe what you have no objective evidence for. If you come to believe it will be through firstly, objective evidence about yourself and your need for what he offers and secondly, objective evidence about him. Objective enough to convince you - if not everyone else.God deals with people one to one: close up and personal. He has all the time in the world to do so - as have we.

One aspect of objective evidence is that it must be apparant to all observers. But if the biblical position poses that we are all blind then observe we patently all cannot.Is red not objectively red just because a blind man cannot see red?Hardly..

There is another dogma which says that all publicity is good publicity. It's not like Jesus hasn't been attacked before (ref: the Bible) Assuming it is a court-as-we-know-it-Jim, then I imagine the defendant (in this case the RC church) will settle itself comfortably into the position of 'innocent until proven guilty' and poor old Luigi, the position of the prosecutor. I noted his age, his smoking habit and the fact that this will run and run. And see the writing on the wall.Maybe we should send him an invitation to EvC so he can get a little practice(Thanks for rushing to my defence all the same EZ)

The old "guilty until proven innocent" ploy. Cunning.It would be worth a guilty verdict to see the cheers from the (less able elements of) other side of the EvC camp.Edited by iano, : title correctionEdited by iano, : clarify

hallelujah.

I doubt it. If an atheist believed in nothing at all then you might have a case. But an athiest doesn't believe in nothing at all. He has beliefs in something - which just happen not to be a belief in God. The trouble about the word atheist is that it is God-centric. Whereas an atheist is something other than God-centric. The only shows in town are a belief in God or something else. An atheist has a belief in something else. ...you have the wavelength 'red' burnt onto your harddrive. It always amazes me this. I'll come back from church and a particular hymn will be humming in my head. I don't remember what chord started it off so I hum a note - say at the start of the chorus. I pick at a string and find that the note I am humming is an A. Not an A.... plus a little bit or an A.. minus a little bit. Just A. The sound I heard in church has burnt itself into my consciousness.Mini-experiment: I've been humming Johnny Cash's song 'Hurt' this last few days. I picked it out - playing along with the CD 3 days ago. First chord is A minor. Just now I hummed the first chord. Well not the chord - for who can hum a chord made up of a number of notes! I hummed the dominant note of the chord. Just now - after 3 days, I picked up my guitar, hummed the dominant note and strummed. Yup - there it was. Spot on - within a % or two.Point being. If you can see red it is because the wavelengths of red have burnt themselves into your brain. You came, you saw, you burnt.

Whatever

I know. And the Bible is originally from God. But is seems relevant to me for all that

You fit the definition of an atheist as I understand it. A believer in something other than God

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1If it doesn't play automatically then he's the first picture on the right

Is atheism God-centric or is it not? Does it look towards the question of God and deny or does it simply look elsewhere and not consider God at all. It seems you can't have it both ways... This is an example of the God-centric view. Look and deny - not 'not within my frame of reference' You may not perceive it as need but I'll warrant you don't believe in nothing at all. How would one figure this out? We are exposed to red long before we can figure out other ways by which we perceive red. A banana eating reddist has visually been exposed to red. That taste links the visual burning with a banana points to crossed wires. It does not eliminate the visual burning which set code red in place.Now if a blind-from-birth synesthetist can point to red whilst eating a banana we might be getting somewhere

Any objective evidence relies on the observer being able to observe. What happens if a person cannot (one or more of the following) see or smell or touch or taste or hear. Is it circular to suppose no objectivity just because some cannot observe?There is nothing specifically religious about it.

How does one define a particular word I wonder? With other words no doubt. Very circular that.We might as well get on with it as best we can NN

You can show someone who is able to see, what you consider red and they will consider it the same way. Assuming of course that they have been brought up to consider red in the same way that you have been (it's a hierarchial thing)Just like me and Faith can compare notesEdited by iano, : typo

And who is the king of this hierarchy