Atheism Examined

In my honest opinion, its much more than that. When I confronted my own atheism with honesty I came to realize that I was vaunting myself against God, whether God was a concept, or whether God were my Father who watches over me. Why though? Why had I made myself like Nimrod? Nimrod knew God, and despised Him anyway. He blamed God for the Flood and vowed to avenge mankind by building a tower that would reach heaven. I didn't know Him, but I formed an opinion in my psyche of distrust. What was going on in my heart that I would ever feel compelled to prove that something didn't exist? What difference did it make to me? Was I trying to prove that to others, or was I really trying to prove that to myself? And though I esteemed pragmatism, I found my treasured disbelief compelled almost entirely by an irrational loathing of something that I alleged didn't exist. I think an honest analysis of the common atheist would reveal that they view themselves as being among the upper crust of any given society. In stark contrast, they view a theist as somewhat of a scathing lunatic, bent on world domination through proselytizing. Why such diametric opposites? You may have heard a theist say, "I can't be an atheist because it requires more faith than I have." What exactly do they mean by it. Well, lets examine that momentarily to see if it even makes sense.To be an atheist is to explicitly claim that there is no God(s). This is an absolute statement, meaning that by claiming it, they are affirming its veracity. Many atheists have no doubt realized the implications for making such a definitive claim. In lieu of this, it has become increasingly difficult in distinguishing an agnostic from an atheist.What I mean to say, is, their new interpretation allows them to still refer to themselves as atheists, because they now call themselves, weak atheists. Basically this is an invented term that is no different from agnosticism, except that, they allow themselves to retain the coveted title, atheist.Here is where the rubber meets the road: To claim that there is no God, without reservation, leaves the claimant with the burden of proof to shoulder, not the theist. For the atheist to purport definitively that there is no God would mean that he has all-knowledge. If he hasn't omnipotence, he or she is speaking from a faith and belief position, no matter how much they recoil from the thought.If, however, he has all-knowledge, he himself would be God; and so he would actually nullify his own argument. For instance, if we were to categorically state that there are no monkeys living in Peru, what would that take to prove? It would mean that we would have to traverse the entire Peruvian landscape. We would have to trek through the densest jungles, go through every residence, every business, every church, every school, and even every sewer. Every space within the boundaries of Peru would have to be sought out completely. Consequently, to prove this false, all that is required is to find just one monkey. If even one monkey is found then the entire case against such is effectively dismantled.If he cannot complete the task, simply because he cannot exist in all spaces simultaneously, this would also act to completely discredit him. He then must concede that his statement is an assertion based on little more than guesswork. The same rule applies when speaking about God. Would it not then, be much more prudent to simply state, “With the limited knowledge I have at the present time, I cannot answer whether or not there is a God.” Must an atheist vaunt himself against that which he claims he doesn't believe in, in the first place?If he were to state this he would then be an agnostic. Agnostics are merely soft-atheists, or soft theists. But at the least they are familiar with the fundamental understanding that they cannot prove, nor disprove, the existence or non-existence of God. I don't think its intentional, but I certainly believe it to be true. An atheist cannot be pinned down to any true moral position, where as a theistic position is easily identifiable because its parameters have been officially established. Its easy to sit on a pedestal and cast judgment on the theist for failing to conform to the precepts or tenets of their faith. On that pedestal is very safe because they have opted for relativism-- that is, their morals are relative to what ever beliefs about they are prepared to identify with.

---

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

I don't think knowing something that others don't makes any one a part of the elite. I think eliteness is to be reserved for the deserving who complete difficult objectives that few ever could. There is a reason why polls are showing that atheists are among the most distrusted people. Who wants to hang around elitist mentalities that do not believe in any real set of morals? There is an arrogance among many atheists because they believe they have climbed the tree of reason. A theist, but particularly Christians, feel that whatever knowledge they have about God was given to them. That in no way instills any sort of pride. In fact, it crushes it and affirms our reliance upon Him. But a theists position about God entails belief. There are many logical inferences that could be made in defense of God, but there is nothing that is going to unambiguously prove the existence of God. Aside from which, as I already stated, atheism is making positive affirmations. They say that there is no God. That's either a true statement or its an incorrect belief. There isn't any two ways about it. Granted. But perhaps you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes as evidence for God. What evidence do you have that love exists? Isn't that completely an internal matter? Can I prove that you love your mother? Can you prove to me that you love your mother? Neither can we do any such thing. That's something only you can verify for yourself, but it doesn't make it any less true because you cannot prove that to us. Suppose with me that God is completely distinct from His creation-- i.e., a monkey. You might say that God is merely a social convention-- a social or mental construct, or that God is some abstraction. But what if God is not made of matter? How do prove something that doesn't have matter, exists? Mankind is limited by the material world.Allow me to get a little metaphysical. Consider that God is the spiritual and the infinite. Though He creates the beginning and the end, He is not subject to it. Although there is no dimension of space, time, or matter devoid of Him, He is not composed of it or contained by it. He is the omnipotent and the omniscient. Therefore, the space-time continuum does not encapsulate or incorporate Him within the universe. For this reason, it is theologically and philosophically understood why God is given all sorts of aggrandized appellations.Suppose that God dwells in the human heart (psyche). It is there that He reveals Himself. Obviously, this is difficult for man to understand because, for the most part, the human mind is only largely capable of grasping physical concepts. I won’t sit here and pretend as if I completely understand God, because I don’t. Nonetheless, it is only by way of prophetic comprehension and personal revelation, granted by God, that we may begin to understand His greatness. In other words, it is only by God, that we understand God.You say, "But that's so easy, NJ. I can do that about anything. I can do that with the FSM." I say, alright, fair enough. But I see it in a manner as practical as something like this could be.Some people have asked me what I thought God looks like. I do not believe that God has physical features. When we read that God made man in His own image, it speaks of the knowledge of righteousness and holiness. Moreover, for me to assume what God looks like would ultimately be a construct of my own mind. This would be idolatrous. What we understand is correlated, or rather, is manifested through our physical senses. Surely, life and the reality of it exceed our ephemeral bodies.Though we cannot see God, virtually everyone has a basic concept and a basic understanding of something beyond themselves. We cannot see God, and yet, we witness His effects in nature. In a similar way, I cannot physically see the wind, but I can see the effects of it as it blows through the trees. Therefore, so, the reality of God is understood, not so much in who or what He is, but rather what He does. I'm glad you ask, because likewise, I cannot see gravity. Though I cannot see it does not negate its existence. In addition, in the same way that we would not consider gravity to be a thing, so we might conclude that God is not a thing. If anything at all, God and gravity are more of a phenomenon.But even this description is woefully inept. Perhaps God cannot be seen, not because He is too transcendental, but because there is no place devoid of Him. If you existed in all dimensions of space and time, what would distinguish you from one thing to the next? You would not be a thing; you would be everything, and then some. Again, perhaps it is not because he is just above all of creation, but maybe because that He is too immanent in the affairs of the universe. In lieu of this, we are only aware of God when He acts to manifest His presence. Maybe this is why the Hebrew word, “Ruach”, denotes both spirit and wind. Again, perhaps it isn't where is God, but rather, where isn't God... Nothing that exists in physical form is without causation. No material object can exist within itself. Everything that exists comes to existence outside of itself. So if we apply Occam's Razor to life and keep reducing the material world by a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, you are reduced to nothing in the physical universe that can create or sustain itself. You must then look outside the physical realm to explain the existence.Is this proof positive that God exists? No, but bereft of answers while applying Occam's Razor, there is no other appealing option. The only absolute certainty is absolute uncertainty. Which means at some point we are going to have to stop maligning the word, "faith," and come to grips with it at some point. Right, which means that at some point you are going to have to take on board with you, personal experience, personal revelation, the witness of other people in relation to you, etc. That's faulty logic since Scarlett Johansson is a being forced to live in a specific dimension of space-time. Is God? Again, not where is God. Where isn't He? Its only as undefined as it could possibly be. Ask the theist, "What is God," and receive 80 different answers. Coming to grips with the existence of God is not an easy concept to swallow. I understand the atheist position from a linear approach. But that isn't where we detect God best. The evidence is taking all that we know and comparing it together like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. Its only a fundamental misunderstanding. Its real simple because the answer lies within your heart. If a man walks into your kitchen and begins to strangle you from behind, are you going to allow him to, or you going to grab the kitchen knife on the counter and go to work? Did you murder him? You know damn well that you didn't. But now suppose you are the man in the kitchen strangling the victim and you kill him. Its obvious you are the murderer.I don't see any backbending in that.

---

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

Why then did you start a thread on this subject? What purpose does it serve to talk about things that do not exist? Its like a person who argues that they are not rude. They keep bringing it up because although they argue that they are not rude, surely there is something within them questioning whether they really are or not. And they prod others to affirm or disaffirm their beliefs. Okay, so why even waste your time on every key stroke given the brevity of this life? What purpose does it serve Richard Dawkins to spend grossly inordinate amounts of time on something he alleges doesn't even exist?Even in the event that there is no God, its undeniable that human beings are drawn to the topic. If that's so, perhaps the more applicable question is why this is so. Why claim that theists are irrational people when it pervades all of humanity? If biology is all that we have, then surely there is a perfectly natural, perfectly logical, and perfectly excusable reason why theists find the compulsion to believe as they do. But what difference does it make, especially in a universe that has no purpose or meaning? Why waste your breath? Do you know that humans have been to the moon? Do you truly know that? Or do you believe it based on what you believe to be a measure of credible evidence? Suppose the conspiracy theorists are right. Suppose that it was all shot in a studio and you're none the wiser of it. As of now, what are you operating on that it is true?Similarly, your belief in evolution is based on genetic and/or morphological similarities. But you could not know whether God designed as such or if its simply a series of happenstances, like a leaf being tossed about in the wind. So I ask, what do you really know, and what do you really believe? Tell me the difference between agnosticism and atheism. I can't answer this until you clarify a few points for me.

---

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

quote:

---

There is a reason why polls are showing that atheists are among the most distrusted people.

---

Well, it makes sense if you think about it. By and large, atheists believe that life is purposeless. That which has no purpose makes everything else mean very little in the grand scheme of life. That means anyone who honestly believes that we live in a purposeless universe have no real motivation to hold strongly to any kind of moral value. That's why they distrust atheists. There's that strong atheism I was talking about coming out. If you declare absolute sentiments concerning God, the burden of proof is upon the claimant. I haven't made an assertion beyond telling you what I believe. You have taken your belief a step further, pointed out to you by several people, that you espouse strong atheism which leaves you with burden of proof to shoulder. Oh, stop you romantic, you. Your wife must be thrilled to hear how in her presence your endorphin's go wild. It is in light of the gospel-- that God is love. But even if it did not make such a statement, the fact that some things exist that cannot be explained strictly by naturalism is my reason for introducing it. I don't go around telling people about my Christianity either unless it bears some relevance to the topic. Nor do I tell people how they should live. That's God's job. I'm only the messenger. No.

quote:

---

But what if God is not made of matter?

---

What is love made of? An equally ambiguous statement. Would God be made of anything if He is not anthropomorphic or even corporeal in any way?

quote:

---

Suppose that God dwells in the human heart (psyche).

---

He's the one in right ventricle. Wave to him. Then what is God since virtually every civilization in human history has worshipped some form of God, whether by concept or by design. Atheists have no trouble understanding God in plenary? What is God then? You witnessed the effects of gravity, not gravity itself, just like watching the wind blowing through the trees is not seeing the wind itself. I thought I made that point clear in my previous post. Scarlett is made of matter. I assume you understand the premise that God is not. Your analogy would then render itself ineffectual. The law of non-contradiction says that two or more contradictory answers cannot both be right, so naturally only or none of those answers is the correct one. Being that you're quite fond of inventing the most ridiculous scenarios to explain your position, I thought you might appreciate some reasonable ones. In what way?

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

By asking why Dawkins pursues, with a particular ardor, things that don't exist? Far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but typically when someone becomes hostile to something such as God, it typically means that there is some measure that it is sinking in. After all, we don't fear paper tigers, right? If I gave a thorough discourse on various arguments from the ontological to the teleological, would this just be more sophistry? I ask because if we can manage to sift through the rhetorical banter, the underlying question always boils down to: 0 + 0 = what? Still no one can account for this inequality. You guys? Who exactly are you confusing me for?

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

Would you rather we switch focus? If your intentions have become skewed, the last thing I want to see is your thread hijacked.I understand the atheist mind because, although I once characterized myself as an agnostic, I had only done so because it was illogical in my mind to refer to myself as an atheist given the nature of the definitions. I was so invigorated by it that I'm branded to this day with a sacrilegious tattoo.But God had other plans for me. Though I didn't know it before, when I look back in retrospect, I see a very careful and methodical orchestration in my life. I find that the old cliche about finding God is every bit true. At least for myself, anyhow. Yes, that is very commendable. I apologize if I allowed for my own skepticism to get in the way of a perfectly good introspection. Certainly. But I wonder if he is drawing false parallels as I feel many people invariably do. Its easy to pass the blame on something relatively indentifiable like religion for all the abject misery in the world. And to a large degree, religiosity is a perfect avenue for perils to come through. But to me, the fact that even religion can go astray is simply evidence of a much bigger problem-- the problem of the self in the face of evil. Its a dangerous proposition to assume that religion is the cause of true evil just as much as its a dangerous proposition to assume that atheism is the cause of true evil. And that is because such problems do not exist in and of themselves. These are simply the mechanisms with which the terrors of the human heart manifest themselves. In other words, to subsume or conflate these avenues as the cause of such things is a mistake, IMO. Granted. Perhaps. However, is that laudable to you? When looking at your son, in all his wonder and splendor; does mere biology encapsulate all of that? Is there a sense that it is cheapened within you to reduce your son to to particles and chemicals? I'm not saying that you necessarily do. But surely you are mindful that many people do, whether unwittingly or intentionally. From a psychological point of view, do you suppose that either reducing our personalities to synapses in the brain, or leaning too heavily on some metaphysical approach is a comfort mechanism? Or is there truth in both? I'll quote from the clip that I posted at the top of this page. Bare in mind it only makes sense when viewing in the atheistic mindset."If evil is illusionary, then so is good. If good is illusionary then why do anything good in this world? So, I don't think it is us because we are not united in what we consider evil. So A will disagree with B and if A says to B, 'it is all just us,' B will have to say that, 'maybe your your way of thinking is not my way of thinking, and who arbitrates that?' There is no way to do away with evil as illusion without doing away with any decent act as illusionary too, and making this world a complete repetition of meaningless acts." -Ravi ZachariasI don't think it is a stretch for me to say that atheists view morality in relative terms. Its also not a stretch for me to say that the predominant atheistic view is that life is ultimately purposeless and directionless. If this is true, then as Mr. Zacharias says, we are simply living out repetitive, meaningless acts, and so, why do anything characterized as good? What would it even mean in a meaningless world? I doubt them too. I just want to drive home the point that for some reason, many people don't realize just how much faith plays an enormous role in their lives-- and yet we sometimes speak about it as if it were beneath us. Why do you suppose that is? That may very well be, but at some point you are trusting and ultimately deferring to what we might otherwise call, "expert testimony." That's an appeal to authority-- something categorically listed as a fallacious argument by many in the atheistic community. My view is similar, in that, atheism claims that there is no good reason to assume God exists, therefore, its reality lends no more credence than invisible, flying, purple elephants. When I was an agnostic, I used to make the argument that Bertrand Russell had made-- that in order for me to believe in God, I needed a primer. I needed something that would initiate the belief.So, in a very real sense, I was certainly leaning towards the atheistic world view. However, agnostics have a very good point which inevitably led me to follow their rationale. When an atheist declares that there is no God, he is essentially making a positive affirmation that God does not exist. But it is an impossibility to disprove a negative. Therefore, I reasoned that it was much more prudent to be an agnostic which claims that a belief in God is either unknowable altogether, or I simply hadn't my primer. I opted to remain open and objective.Years later I would receive my primer.

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

In all honesty, I realize that I cannot disprove Loki. I don't have any good reason to believe in Loki either. I guess that would have made me an agnostic had I not already believed in a God.You can't be an atheist to one God, and a believer to another. They cancel each other out since atheism is defined as a belief in no gods or anything supernatural.

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

The difference, in this instance, between all or most is so negligible that its pointless to distinguish between the two. Religion is always the blame, whether real or imagined. Nobody denies that its being used as a front to express other sentiments. I see it as just the scapegoat for a much larger problem. The people that honestly believe that eradicating religion would allow them to finally live in a utopian civilization is just as delusional as the religious folk they claim are delusional. Religion is something that can be easily manipulated and easily hijacked. I would wholeheartedly agree with that. My issue is to say that blaming religion itself is a dangerous endeavor. We could blame politics in the exact same way. How many crazy political ideologies have surfaced since the dawn of man? More than I could count. But rarely do we see people all the travails of society on politics itself. Rather, they blame specific ideologies and the specific ideologues that announce them.

quote:

---

Its also not a stretch for me to say that the predominant atheistic view is that life is ultimately purposeless and directionless.

---

Alright then, then what is the meaning of life? Did we have a purpose for being here in the beginning? Do we now have a purpose for existing? Are we heading in a discernable direction, or an indiscernable one? If you answer yes to any of these then you unequivocally must answer by whom or what arbitrates or facilitates the existence, the purpose, and the direction. Is that not all indicative of intent? Is not the common atheist averse to such sentiments over its implications? How am I off the mark about this?

quote:

---

When an atheist declares that there is no God, he is essentially making a positive affirmation that God does not exist.

---

I think you are misunderstanding me and, apparently, Mr. Jack, who has already explained it."Strong atheism, sometimes called positive atheism, hard atheism or gnostic atheism, is the philosophical position that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism." -Wiki

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

If he were simply just trying to sell books then he could choose any topic he wanted. Instead there is a consistent theme with Dawkins-- atheism. Many of the atheists, here on EvC and elsewhere, say he is a bit extreme with his ideologies. I'm not sure why you have a problem with my using him as a prime example for what I'm talking about.Secondly, if his desire is just to sell books, then what exactly sets himself apart from, say, Ann Coulter? Is she just out to make a buck? Is Dawkins just in it for the money? Or are they interested in selling a mindset? I prefer the latter explanation. Well, some of us were discussing it in chat and Phat made a good point. Some people wouldn't make blanket statements about atheists or any other group, for that matter, until they are somewhat forced to by taking a multiple choice poll. For instance, I might have voted the same way, but that doesn't mean that I would necessarily distrust someone simply because they are an atheist. Given their mild nature, I have immense respect for such atheists as Modulous, Chiroptera, Quetzal, Sidelined, etc. I unfortunately cannot say that for all of our resident atheists.The point I'm trying to make about the poll is that people know a few things about the atheistic view. And that information they know about is coming from prominent atheists by how they have marketed their ideals. When the bulk if humanists stop with the self-congratulatory attitude and begin feeding the poor, like many theists have been doing since, forever, perhaps that generalization will be no more. I think the single greatest problem with the negative view for atheism is that it reeks of arrogance. There is something very smug and condescending about it. But they aren't the only ones to hold that title. When somebody sees the Ted Haggards of the world, they see that same smugness, and what's worse, that he's also a raging hypocrite. Yeah, that's so silly. Oh, right, I almost forgot how every morning at the same time, I blast apologetic tracks in front of Dawkins' house. Not all atheists are as fervent as somebody as Dawkins. Some people just don't believe God exists. That's fine. Can't really fault them for being honest. But when irrational loathing and a bizarre fixation enters in to the picture, I have to question those motivations. Do you have any specific people in mind? For the vast majority people that have ever lived on earth, God is science. What television are you watching? I'm more accustomed to the television where in public policy it is either taboo or criminal to mention God. Why? Why are we better off assuming that God does not exist? What changes could we expect if we were to abandon the notion of God? You mentioned theists that kill others as part of some policy for God. You couldn't possibly be talking about me. That does sound, however, sound akin to Wahhabi Islam.

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

quote:

---

By and large, atheists believe that life is purposeless.

---

All nihilists are atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists... Is that the gist?Kind of like all Floridians are Americans, but not all Americans are Floridians?

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

Normally I answer my critics in sequential order, but I'm not sure I will have a chance to answer this before I leave.The only time I believed in God was when I was very young. I really knew very little about it, nor did I give it much thought. I simply assumed he existed, probably like many of the members on EvC, but rarely did I ever ponder the deeper questions as a child. I can't recall exactly when I stopped believing that, but as a rough estimate, from about fourth grade until I was 24, I was an unbeliever.I wasn't a lapsed Christian in a backslidden state because I was never a Christian. In fact, I disliked Christianity as much as the next guy for all of the same reasons you dislike it.Until I had an experience that erased all doubt.

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

No apology necessary. Perhaps I need to apologize to you, though. I've just been overcome by a strong feeling to make peace with a few members on this board. Over this past year you and I have had our battles. All in good fun, I suppose. After all, there is something beautiful about the sharing ideas. However...I know I speak bluntly on matters, and, perhaps to a fault. I try and speak respectfully and not to use ad hominem. For the most part, I've probably met that objective. But even still, I think I have come down too hard on some of you in trying to express my beliefs.Its difficult to not compromise the core of Christ's message without either being too rigid and legalistic, or without being too soft and malleable to the point of compromising it all. Its a dichotomy for me to be sure. People like myself are always teetering on the edge of a knife, between pulling souls close to us, or pushing them further away. Its actually a terrifying prospect now that I've really thought about it. Its an art form to present the gospel properly. I know that though my intentions have always been pure, that I have not perfected that art form. And for that I must apologize.I have been characterized as a "fundy." I'm still not sure what even means. It seems to have so many variations. If it means that I believe in Yeshua's message wholeheartedly, then I'm an uber-fundy. If it means that I have lapsed in to an uncompassionate man and lost sight of His greater message, then let it not be so.Allow me now to apologize to anyone if ever I've done a disservice to my own position, or if I've hurt the feelings of anyone on this forum unduly. As you may know, I will be leaving tomorrow for a considerable hiatus. I will be training and moving and trying to resettle in a new city. I don't know when I will be back, or even if I'll be back. (I most likely will) I will use this time to introspect and reflect on things that I can do better. I can't promise that if and when I return that some of us won't still have heated discussions. Indeed, I think it can be healthy as long as we are just playing with ideas. But I will promise is that I take to heart all that I've said in this post. And I will do all that I can to meet that.It would be a shame for me to leave you all with a bad taste in your mouth for me. If I can walk away from here having planted even a small seed in the minds of some on this forum, then I've met my objective. Whether it one day flourishes or never grows is not for me to know or understand.I hope and pray that nothing but goodness finds you all. I've had so much fun on here and got to learn a lot about you all and to view your minds. Whether we agree on most things, or disagree on most things, I tip my hat to all and offer my hand in friendship.I will be around until the end of the day, and perhaps, a little bit of tomorrow. I can't wait to see you all again. Happy debating one and all!!!

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

Its kind of a long story, so if you don't mind me copying and pasting from a post I made a few months ago, it should explain the moment I'm speaking about that led up to my conversion. [quote]If you will oblige me, I will post what I have previously written as a prologue in a book that I started, entitled, "The Road to Damascus: finding life amidst the valley of the shadow of death"The inexplicable revealedIt was February 28, 2002. That night marked the 2nd anniversary of my enlistment into the United States Navy. I was off duty that particular night and on a date with a fiery redhead that I had recently met. We had spent the evening getting to know each other better and having a great time. Nearing the latter portion of our date we found ourselves lakeside, engaged in conversation.The conversation seemed to flow effortlessly from one topic to the next with little prompting. From the ebb and flow of the dialogue, the conversation took an unexpected detour towards a topic, that, in the most profound way, would forever change my life. Alexan began to speak about her faith and about biblical principles and events that shaped and molded her character. Little did we know at the time that these topics would resurface countless times, proving to be the bedrock of our relationship. You see, a few months after the fact, I went ahead and married that girl.On this night, not only was I attracted to her mental prowess as she spoke of these things, but I was captivated by the conviction behind her faith. She spoke with a certainty unrivaled. I hung on to every word as if it were nourishment to satiate my ravenous hunger for Truth. In her witness she was being used as a vessel of glory. For the first time in my life, I was honestly receptive to the notion of God. To fully understand the scope of impact that this had on me, perhaps a brief synopsis will offer a greater insight to the reader.Growing up I was a fairly typical young man. I had parents and a sister that loved me. I was never without anything thing that sustains life, nor lacked any amenities that might have enhanced it. I had a multitude of friends. I was athletic and healthy. I was musically inclined. For all intense and purposes, I had every conceivable reason to be successful in whatever desire I sought to endeavor. Despite all my worldly blessings and achievements, a life once seemingly clear, grew dismal.

-Oswald ChambersThis quote, paraphrased from one of the great Christian apologists, has summed up the expression to the truth that has been dumbly struggling in (me) for utterance. As well, I pray that I might be that author who gives to you the expression to the truth that has been been dubly struggling in you for utterance. Where should I begin?It seems that for as long as I can remember, I have toiled and agonized with the void. The void: What is it? The void is that curious sense of lack-- that nagging sense that something is missing. It is that place of emptiness inside the human heart. The void is that peculiar intuition that something is amiss and awry, but you aren’t sure why. The void is ever present in all facets of human thought and emotion.I found this inequality to be true in my own experience, recognizing that it was separate from intellect-- meaning-- I could not think my way out of this one. The void spurns the logical and any attempt to rationalize it ends with disparaging results. The void is a quandary and a vexation of sorts. The whole of it becomes so much more than just enigmatic-- its completely bewildering. It is the missing piece of the puzzle. As more variables appeared, I was confronted with a maze of obstacles. The twists and turns sent me roundabout until I came full circle from where I had begun. I became the proverbial dog who chases his own tail. What I thought was reality became illusory. What I thought was truth was anything but, and it chastened me.From this position it had caused me to consider the philosophical questions that enter our minds from time to time. I have always found it tremendously interesting to ponder the deeper aspects of such notions and to observe how others have formulated their own conclusions. Gaining perspectives on others allowed me to assimilate my views from theirs, through comparison and contrast. It inevitably led me even further into the uncomfortable journey of introspection. Unfortunately, I had no idea what it was that I was looking for and certainly did not know how to find it.The only thing certain for me was that intangible pang in my heart. It was haunting and nothing seemed to offer any solace. I searched through vain and temporal avenues seeking restitution, but reprieve from it constantly eluded me. There were no lines of demarcation-- where a boundary began and where it would end. And so, I sought the council of those I deemed to be wise, hoping that they had some insight on life that I was failing to grasp. To my dismay, they were just as lost as I was, and perhaps even more so, because at least I could admit it to myself. These self-help gurus wore pride as a necklace and were blinded by their own convoluted sense of self-worth.At this point in time I had heard all the arguments to support this or that religion, or to meditate on this or that philosophy. But it all left a bad taste in my mouth. All that I gave ear to began sounding like a broken record. Today’s discourse was merely a carbon copy of yesterdays rant. The former was a slight gradation from the latter, only with a subtle twist. It was the same mouthful of mouthwash, only now swishing to the other side of the cheek.The understanding that I had hoped to find in them was either fleeting or elusive, altogether. Meanwhile, I suffered in quiet desperation as one day melted seamlessly into the next. I am sure those closest to me sensed some level of despair in me, but I doubt they understood the breadth and depth of its extent. Life was grievous to me and what I thought was reality was now faade.Growing weary with cynicism, I eventually embraced agnosticism but not before weighing the juxtaposition of religiosity and philosophy - Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, Rationalism, and the like. Some of the ism schism caught my eye but they were quickly put to death for a lack of, what?, I do not know. I had been witnessed to by virtually every Christian denomination imaginable. But they were either weak in their faith, and thus, could not present an argument that I was able to dismantle in moments, or I had put up walls in which to shut them out.And so, for years, I was at the crossroads of ambivalence, not knowing up from down.Something new was in the air as Alex spoke; something new on the horizon had dawned. Ironically enough, I did not feel some resplendent bliss that one might associate with the prospect of someone coming to terms with a fixed belief. Nay, but rather, it was dread. It was insidious and I could feel it in the pit of my gut.An uneasy feeling came over me and the hairs on the back of my neck stood on end. The air was stagnate and there was a ringing in my ear. Something knew it had been discovered as I became increasingly aware of its presence and it is aversion to having me hear what she had to say about God. In spite of this, it could not keep me away from Him. The bondages of oppression began to lift throughout the conversation.A few weeks after that experience I had opened myself increasingly to the possibility of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent presence. I wasn’t entirely sold out on the notion just yet, but I was allowing the possibility to flourish instead of stifling it as I had done for so many years. I began to listen to sermons on the radio and started to read the Bible with understanding. The scales began to fall off my eyes. I was able to discern that which I could not recognize before. The Word became a catalyst to a consuming flame. I began to pray to God, that if He truly was there, that He would reveal Himself to me. And a few weeks after the walls were let down, it happened...I was on a routine patrol getting ready to secure a building on the base. For the life of me, I cannot recall what the sermon was about or what exactly it was that affected me so greatly, nonetheless, like a clarion call, it came to me. Have you ever looked at something for so long that it becomes obscured to you? Have you ever looked at something for so long that you come to realize that it never truly made any sense to you to begin with? Suddenly, and inexplicably, it dawns on you what it is!I was sitting in the patrol unit with my jaw to the floor. Incredible emotion swept through me like a shock wave. Emotion washed over me as I was enveloped by grace. I literally fell out of the vehicle, prostrate, in a semi-fetal position. Tears began to well up in my eyes, so heavy and full of burden. And there on the ground, in an unguarded moment, I wept bitterly to my Lord.Amid the sobs were guttural groans, interrupted by a feeble attempt to express the ineffable. I begged for intercession and pleaded forgiveness. In that once-in-a-lifetime moment, I understood that which had vexed me for so long. And because I asked, I received. That was the day that I met the Ruach HaKodesh El Shaddai (the Holy Spirit of Almighty God)! After being so sick and tired, of being so sick and tired, I was saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus.“Lord if you are willing, you can make me clean.’ Jesus replied, ”I am willing. Be clean.” -Matthew 8:2-3In this book I am going to emphatically support the reasons why I believe that not only is there a God, but that He loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son, for my sake and for yours. In so doing, I ask the reader to be patient with me in my attempt to appeal to the Jewishness of the Scriptures. At times, I am going to be using Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew translations to help capture the essence of the original manuscripts. For the sake of clarity and continuity, all foreign words will be followed by their respective English translation.You may be wondering why I chose to write this; especially those of you who grew up with me who are a bit perplexed at my transformation. Let there be no ambiguity as to my reasons for writing this. I must confess that I have ulterior motives behind it. There are certain individuals that I know, whom shall remain anonymous, that the Lord has placed strongly on my heart.To put it simply, I feel that for all who do not know the Lord personally are quite familiar with the void. Going through my own personal trials and battling my own demons, I am of the firmest belief that it is directly associated with lacking the knowledge of God-- not mentally, but spiritually. In respects to this, nothing would give me a greater satisfaction than to see them come to the knowledge of God in grace and supplication.But, alas, I am met with trepidation and reservation. I am going to be speaking about principles that I do not always keep. In fact, I am a hypocrite, a liar, a glutton, a backbiter, an idolater, a backslider and everything unclean. I could give innumerable instances where I err and fall short to the glory of God. I know, full well, that when left to my own devises, nothing good dwells in me. After all, I have the ability either to glorify His providence or to bring it into disrepute.Aside from the distinct fear of misrepresenting my God, I have, as well, an Accuser who constantly derides me and points out all of my faults and reminds me of my failings. Though I lament over this, I cannot let it deter me from pressing on to the goal. My weakness is God’s strength. I must decrease but He must increase. And if bringing myself low exalts Him, so let it be. (Amen).“For the Law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that, I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I wish not to do, I agree with the Law, that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who does it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me, nothing good lives; for to will, is present in me, but how to perform what is good, I do not find. For the good that I want to do, I do not do; but the evil that I do not want to do, this I keep doing. For I delight in the Law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of my sin which is in my members. O’ wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death?” -Romans 7:14-24“And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of the Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love, which are in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying and worthy of acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first, Christ Jesus might show all, longsuffering as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen” -1st Timothy 1:12-17 Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell