I agree entirely. This is where I disagree with you. One simply cannot use the tools of the physical world, (scientific method, etc) to prove the existence of the spiritual world. It’s disheartening to see believers try because they lose the argument every time. I'm sure that for most atheists, the discussion ends here. No physical evidence, then the conversation is pointless.

Ooook! said same principle, not method. I agree with Ooook!'s statements about that and as an atheist, am willing to consider non-physical "evidence"--if it comes anytime soon. Then again, some theists think it's already there and I keep missing the cues. Oh well... Still waiting.

**SNL***Church Ladie (" How convienant".)

Which god named God are we talking about?
The one who had nothing to do with the tsunami in SE Asia?
The one who caused it for reason X?
The one who caused it for reason Y?
The one who caused it for reason Z?
Star Jones' one, who put it on hold for a month to make sure that she was clear of the area?Do you believe that all of these Gods exist?

Thanks for your reply. I've actually never had a "religious experience". I have become emotional on occasion when I contemplate the depth of the meaning of my beliefs, but I cannot be sure that I've ever had anything happen to me that I would call supernatural.I have simply read the gospels and believe them whereas an agnostic has decided that this is not enough reason to believe. It is not an issue with you BECAUSE you disbelieve in an afterlife. However, if you were genuinely completely neutral as an agnostic and equally doubtful of both then it might tend to push you out of neutral towards either belief so that you could believe that you were going to have the good afterlife or towards nonbelief so that you could believe that you would not experience anything.But not knowing... that is what is scary. Heck its scary enough for me to not know what I'm going to do out of college... much less if I didn't think I knew what would happen after I died. No doubt. Most humans need religion. My belief in Christ allows me to be at peace and happy in any situation. So what do you classify yourself again? I would classify you a weak atheist because you reject the idea of God, but that could change if you had a real reason to believe.I seriously doubt there are very many truly neutral agnostics out there except for perhaps those who have just recently been caused to doubt their previous position.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 03-03-2005 19:52 AM

My, My, My, how impertinant of you!!!........You must be..................................oh I don't know.........................

SAATAAN??

Slightly on a tangent here...Talk of a "god" involves clarification. It is possible to talk of god as a moral idea or talk of god as, say, a necessary end to the debate of ‘where did it all begin?’, or both. Obviously much of the time we are talking about both. However, I feel an athiest is essentially just denying the possibility of a moral god.Satre esstentially bases his entire moral philosophy on the non existence of a moral god, placing moral responsibility on the individual. You have to decide what is right or wrong.On a side point many philosophers have seen the idea of a god as necessary to explain questions like, 'why/how does existence exist?' This goes no further to explain whether this god carries moral connations, although many of those philosophers believe it does, but it doesn't necessarily have to.Therefore, in some sense you could be an athiest and argue for the existence of god.This message has been edited by m, 03-04-2005 13:34 AM

quote:

---

I've actually never had a "religious experience". I have become emotional on occasion when I contemplate the depth of the meaning of my beliefs, but I cannot be sure that I've ever had anything happen to me that I would call supernatural.

---

I consider those emotions as "religious experience". Sorry, should have defined my terms a little better.

quote:

---

It is not an issue with you BECAUSE you disbelieve in an afterlife. However, if you were genuinely completely neutral as an agnostic and equally doubtful of both then it might tend to push you out of neutral towards either belief so that you could believe that you were going to have the good afterlife or towards nonbelief so that you could believe that you would not experience anything.

---

True. I can't distinguish between the existence of an after life and unfounded hope. Therefore they are one in the same. I am only guaranteed one life, the one I am experiencing now. All other possibilities pale in comparison to what I am experiencing now. When I say I "gave up on an afterlife" I meant that it is not a gaurantee so I plan otherwise.

quote:

---

No doubt. Most humans need religion. My belief in Christ allows me to be at peace and happy in any situation.

---

I hope that you are taking this in the way it is given. I am not looking down on you or claiming that religion is for dullards. That being said, this is the problem that I have with religion and theism. I can't separate the human emotional need from the possible existence. The two don't seem to be independent. This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that I can't tell if my mind is fooling me into feeling something that isn't there.

quote:

---

So what do you classify yourself again? I would classify you a weak atheist because you reject the idea of God, but that could change if you had a real reason to believe.

---

I don't reject the idea of a deity. I just can't independently verify the existence of a deity outside of my own subjective emotions. I distrust myself more than I disbelieve in the existence of God. Because of this distrust I put God into the same folder with alien UFO sightings and alien abductions, both of which can be products of a wild imagination mixed in with emotion.

Most of the discussions posted by self proclaimed 'hard atheist' here and in other threads has been the denial of the existence of any God, moral or not. I'm not an atheist so it is difficult for me to present that point of view, but it would seem to me that's a bit of a stretch.IMHO an intelligent designer devoid of morality is still a supernatural being that is not any more palatable to atheist than a moral God.

quote:

---

I'm not an atheist so it is difficult for me to present that point of view, but it would seem to me that's a bit of a stretch.

---

The bridge between atheism and theism is probably Deism. In Deism, the theology is that there was a creator god who started the universe and life then just stepped away from it. The deist Creator God had no involvement with the universe after it's initial formation. While a Deist accepts the existence of God they do not look for a relationship with God. If there is weak atheism, I guess Deism could be categorized as weak theism.

quote:

---

IMHO an intelligent designer devoid of morality is still a supernatural being that is not any more palatable to atheist than a moral God.

---

An intelligent designer could still be natural, such as aliens or time-traveling humans.

I suppose that's true. Time traveling humans?

Ah! There's the thing that probably defines my stand-point.Where do Christians get their idea of what God is like? The Bible, right?People may have had some kind of spiritual experience to set it all off, but the definition of what God is and what he condemns or condones comes from a written text like the Koran or the Bible, surely? What is a religious text if it isn't a device for communication in the physical world, and why can't I examine it and its' authenicity using similar principles?The question that agnostics, from the wishy-washy undecided, to the copper-bottomed "I don't care where I get splinters!" type, all have asked and come up negative is :"Can I really trust this book to tell me how to live?"I hope this clarifies things a bit, and doesn't drag the topic too far off target. I've just noticed that I've asked an awful lot of questions in this post (a sure fire way of telling that I need some sleep), so I think I'll turn in. Ta ta!

You certainly can critically examine the Bible, and study the communication contained within the pages. If you yourself have never had that little spiritual "experience' to set it off, however, you have not met the author of the passion and meaning behind the book.
According to a believers perspective, anyway.BTW this does not make you ignorant or "out of da club" but it certainly may mean that the conclusions that you arrive at are different from your typical churchgoer.This leads us to determine whether our churchgoer has been enlightened or brainwashed.
You have the advantage of examing the book from a detached and rational perspective.In conclusion, I believe that you and others as rational as you will view the book differently than I and others like me do.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-05-2005 04:50 AM

No need to explain. In order for me to think that you are accusing me of ignorance you will have to literally shout DON’T YOU KNOW ANYTHING!!. As it stood you did a good job of presenting a different POV. This I think is an accurate assessment of the difference in attitudes, and probably the reason I normally don’t last that many posts on the rare occasions that I when I venture onto the Faith and Belief forum (this thread is probably a record). It normally quickly boils down to Fair enough, I can’t accept Faith, you can. See you around! There is one thing that I do want pick up on though. I’ll say something about it here, but in order to prevent the thread turning into Ooook!’s Manefesto, I’ll not say anything more here. If it’s something you want to discuss further, give us a shout and I’ll be happy to start up a new topic (or be directed to a pre-existing one). Fair enough, I can’t accept Faith, you canbutthere is something that keeps my interest in (what I perceive as ) Faith vs evidence debates (like EvC) alive. If certain judgements are being made on the back of an unobservable spiritual feeling that ‘the’ book is correct, then surely you have to be rock-solid certain about acting on them.There is again, I believe, a sliding scale on such actions. The Christian ‘Golden Rule’ or the Islamic ideal of charity for example don’t have any bad implications for other people that I can think of, and don’t actually require a belief in Jesus or the Koran for people to follow them — if people want to credit a spiritual experience for that kind of thing I won’t kick up a fuss at all.However: if people want to act on something written in a holy book like a perceived condemnation of homosexuality, a dangerous apocalypse account, or a creation myth that undermines scientific integrity, then the question that begs to be answered is How sure are you?. Certain actions that are sometimes carried out in the name of God leave me to think I could never be that sure!

Good point, and something for ME to chew on for awhile. I'll get back to you in this thread perhaps...Forums are good places for Manifestos to be drafted. Ideas are never pointless, and I'm sure that we can carry on a bit further before one of us loses interest. I'll get back to ya!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-05-2005 12:18 AM