Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 15^th, 2007 at 12:15pm:



however if you were shown the truth and amply rejected it most probly due to selfishness then your own self inflicted fate will be worse than anyones.

Ray - that's a great posting.
In ways I agree with Dawkins and yourself. 
God is bigger than a "religion". God is Spiritual.

He is ... bigger than a "religion."


"He replied, "Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding."
Judges 13:18

Quote:


There are agnostic-atheists, and agnostic-theists. There isn't really a contradiction here. Agnostic-atheists are not so sure there isn't a God. Agnostic-theists believe, or are open to belief,  to some degree, but without evidence. Mostly, they don't believe there's enough evidence to support God, but for their own reasons they remain open on this question.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has a different definition:

ATHEISM
is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

I find that 'interesting' to put it mildly, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. (But they're atheists, so I guess they ought to know how to define themselves) By that definition you can actually have a Christian Atheist. A Christian who accepts that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, but believes in God through faith. (Faith is defined as belief without evidence.)

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/

If you really get into semantics, I certainly believe that God exists as a psychological phenomenon. If you get into even more semantics, I don't find the concept of 'God of the Gaps' or Deism to be totally at odds with my worldview, but there are just two many historical errors, contradictions and revisions in traditional Abrahimic religions to give them any kind of credibility for me. As I tried to explain before, I've put the whole concept of atheism behind me, because it's something that will never be resolved. What's important for me is rational clear thinking, striving for good health, peak fitness, self improvement, getting along with the rest of humanity, and trying to see both sides of the argument. 

What's also important is that other people are different from me, because variety is the spice of life, and we can learn from differences if we just open our minds.

Musician -  Our word definitions are getting a bit confusing for me.
I agree that you could have a christian who believes there is no scientific or factual proof of God.

From my vague memory, that is what is said in the Bible.  God is unproveable, a mystery.

"getting along with the rest of humanity" sounds a winner to me.



freediver - I have had a similar experience in another room recently.
They are openminded, if we agree 100% with them.  Very scary and quite disappointing.

For that matter, there is ample proof that Elvis still lives, but I doubt if you could prove either in a Court of Law.

This is an interesting thread. I still disagree with Musician's contention that no firm distinction can be made between atheism and agnosticism. I will concede that agnostics may lean towards deism or atheism in varying degrees; and all may fall within the broad category of atheists insofar as they reject the views of the theists, who claim to know at least something of the nature of the God they worship. But true atheists are as fundamentalist in their beliefs as the most rabid Islamists, Christians or Jews. Agnostics, on the other hand, remain forever open to alternative views.

Sprintcyclist prefers people who don't sit on the fence. Well, OK. Coming down firmly on one side or the other saves us the trouble of thinking about things, I guess. Personally, I quite like to think about things.

It is reassuring to learn from Ray_A that Dawkins is not so fundamentalist an atheist as I thought, though from what I have read of him he seems to be. I heard him on radio not long ago putting forward one of his straw-man arguments in favour of his devotion to evolution theory. Moths are attracted to a candle and burn, he said, because moths have existed longer than candles. Hello? Moths evolved before fire, Richard? Pull yourself together, Sunshine.

Freediver's risk management policy is an amusing concept. It raises the question, though, as to what kind of God would be impressed by devotion based on such self-serving motivation. Whatever the nature of the God who might have created us, He built into us powers of reason, and propensity to doubt. That is what separates us from the animals. Is truer devotion not reflected in our exercising our powers of reason?

Only the nature of the God of Abraham can be reflected in Pender's response to Sprintcyclist's interpretation of scripture. If that is God's attitude, He can go and get stuffed as far as I'm concerned.

For those open to the idea of deeper truths being found in fiction, consider the short story from Franz Kafka, about dogs (I can't remember its name). It is a story from the dogs' point of view. In it, the dogs are unaware of the presence of people, except by the results of their actions. They cannot see people at all. Food for them to eat appears out of nowhere. The lap dogs among them are suspended in mid-air, a couple of feet from the ground. The dogs' existence in the world is an unfathomable mystery to them; but they go about their doggie business unperturbed.

Perhaps that story's dogs enjoy a relationship with their people in some way equivalent to the humans' relationship with God.

Cracticus wrote on Feb 26^th, 2008 at 2:48pm:


Dawkins tends to speak to his audience. He made a concession to Francis Collins that the idea of God is a "noble one", but in other places he ridicules the idea.