Both positions boil down to the same base concept: belief. Now, belief is something different than faith. Faith blindly accepts a set of ideas as “truth” just because some other man (and it could not proveably come from any other source) said it was so. A belief is an initially neutral set of ideas that a person accepts because those ideas seem monst reasonable to him or her. Once accepted, the belief system ceases to be nuetral, and begins to take on the “proofs” of the group adopting that system.

The problem is that in either case, belief cannot be proven or disproven anymore than god can (or can’t). Theists “believe” in god; Athiests do not, but that is really as far as the argument can go. Niether have a single actual proven fact to hang a belief structure on, other than what ideas they have chosen to accept as “truth”.

The fact, inescapeable logically, is that there is no such thing as theism or atheism. Without a way to prove or disprove, no human can actually “know” if he or she is right or wrong. Christians will drag out the old claim that if a person has Jesus (or, one may assume, Mohammed, Buddah, Charles Manson, or whoever else) in their hearts then they will just “know” that god exists and that they know the truth. Atheists will counter that a religious experience is simply an emotional response to an intense ceremony, whether public or private, and one could, and does at times, have the same emotional response while gazing at the stars or the Grand Tetons, or whatever.

So, the best that any of us can achieve, where god is concerned, is a committed agnosticism, or a committed devotion to — and this is the main point — an UNPROVEABLE BELIEF system.

If you really are true to yourselves, you self-proclaimed athiests, then your position should be one of pure skepicism. Your motto should be: “I will believe that which is proveable to be, either by observable action, or demonstratable (and repeatable) result of observable action.” Those of you who cling to the belief structure of a 2000 year-old desert god would do well to do some study, putting emotion aside (because you can’t trust it, as anyone who has ever been in love can attest) and objectively search for the actual non-faith-based truth.

“Faith” is one of the mose dangerous concepts ever to have entered the mind of man. It requires belief without proof; belief simply because some other man said it was true, who perhaps led you through some sort of emotional ritual. I could just as easily believe that Charles Manson is the reincarnated Jesus Christ!

Skepicism should be your religion. Only that will lead you anywhere near the actual “truth”.

And I can’t conclude without refuting a couple of your theists’ assertions. A godless person has plenty of reason to love his or her children. Love, and especially protection, of offspring has been selected for our species by evolution, as a survival advantage. In a larger sense, cultural morality has been selected for by the same forces. Those societies who destory each other don’t long survive. To suggest that a god is required for human morality is nonsense.

Ketch, I don’t know where you got the idea that non-believers have fewer children than believers. In our western society it is fairly easy to have the number of children you want and no more. I’m afraid I can find no correlation to religion in the number of children families have (with the possible of exception of Catholics and Mormons, whose objective was to populate the world with offspring who thought like they did: an objective that hasn’t really worked out very well).

And those of you who suggest that atheist societies are responsible for more atrocities against their fellow beings than theist societies, citing Stalin and PolPot as examples, I suggest that you study a bit more history. More and bloodier conflicts have arisen because of religion than any other cause in the history of the world. The list is endless: Romans killed Christains in the name of their gods. The Crusades of the 13th and 14th centuries resulted in continous bloodshed and destruction. The 16th century Inquisition slaughtered thousands of innocents. Queen Mary of England and Sir Thomas More routinely burned “heretics” at the stake for the sake of their beliefs. Even today, fundamentalist Islamic jihadists are very prepared to kill anyone whom the accuse of being a infidel. The list goes on and on — religion does not guarantee a moral society, and in many cases is antithetical to it.

And on one last note, you theists: you cannot use the Bible to prove your belief system. Of course the Bible is going to affirm it. Paul said, “Those who have wisdom will know the truth” — as long as the “wisdom” he was talking about was the belief in his teachings.

And you atheists: examine your positions. Are you any less zealous about something you cannot prove than the theists are? I suggest you adopt the position of Skepticism. There is where lies the path to truth, if there is one.

I have two, 13 and 8. I guess that’s not enough to be “good.”

Bonehead.

How God Created the cosmos, the universe, the Earth and man, actually I trust science about that than I can trust the Bible. That’s my religion. Nice post Mr. Daniel.

True religion, true God, form of God and such, are conflicts between theists. They are no place for atheist. The best that atheist can do in there is to disprove beliefs – existing religious beliefs, but not getting nearer to the contention that there is no God.

Written statements are real, solids. Any of them are therefore probable. Just for the sake of discussion, let’s take some of them.

By Ketch22: “(Romans 1:20) For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

“Romans 1:20”

That says it is of Christian Faith. And the following were the finished product of people who passed it on as tradition, translated them from the original, and yes, printed them in the era of paper and ink. They are open to probes wider than the mouth of the Amazon River. But, to simplify lets go straight to the sense and logic where I think the meat must be. Who says them are now not important.

“Since the creation of the world”

The statement is, should I say, obsolete if compared to “Since the Earth formed” And modern forensic evidences [against no figure presented] approximated that event to be 6-7 billions years ago. That modern man [depending on ones definition of “modern” man] appeared only not earlier than approximately 1.5 million years ago. He was clear, unmistakably, thinking creature some 30 thousand years ago.

The age of the Earth is nothing awesome actually because matter was there since infinity. And, when we say INFINITY, billions and trillions of years are literally nothing to it. To summarize, 7-day-creation is literally a myth when stood against facts.’

“God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,”

Well, they are real in virtual reality, in the world of spirits. But, they are true and real only as far as those who see. And, but, “true” and “real” in the spiritual world are in fact perceptions, beliefs, in the physical world; and same with “seen” and “understood”.

“So that men are without excuse”

Now, this one can be perceived as threatening. I believe religions should be based on logic, sense, free will, free of threats and promises. Is not that religious chauvinism, particularly of Christians, in the past still being carried over? Threatening the flocks, the other religious to include the un-religious? Anyway, it still works for some people in some places today. But, tomorrow’s people can’t be threatened. They go only for fact, sense, logic, out of their free will.

Are Atheists dangerous people?

I think, atheism is no more dangerous than theism if it comes to that.

Why do you think people strap bomb to themselves? Atheists do not do that. In special cases, I would say in situations that are hypothetical, probably they would do. In reality as in Cambodia and the third world, for example, we had man eliminating man. People see themselves as being eliminated so they simply must counter-eliminate. Mankind is no more than walking organisms + Self preservation + Survival of the fittest.

Even such brand of atheism is not absolutely free of a spiritual side. Let’s call them idealism – love of country, love of future generations, heroism, living forever [in books since it cannot be real] Pure idealism is bullshits to a Real godless – to orangutans, for example. But if another is there on the tree that has been feeding them, whoa that could be different. Its simple self preservation, simple survival of the fittest! [Don’t they have spirit/mind?] :-)

Ketch, I think you should evolve. The world is now full of wandering spirits, while many of them still identify with established religions; they see old religious thus religions themselves as ridiculous! I think it is because some beliefs have become myths. And when myths are passed as truth they become dead weight that makes sink. Throw them overboard or you sink. :-)

I think that’s what atheism is telling static religious.

Atheism as damaging? Like Devils now reign? Coming from “theist” that itself is atheism. Desbelief in God.

[Something by me should have spelled “jogging on his toes”]

Back to the good old dictionary. Back to putting you on the spot, Ketch.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Do you see number 2? That ‘piece of dung’ you want to ignore is part of the definition of the word Faith. We’ve been over this ground before. You want to sneakily limit what words can and cannot mean. You selectively ignore the definition if it makes you look like a fool. How does your wife feel about your methods of purposely misdefining words? Does she do that in philosophy class? Or is it beneath her?

If you bother responding again Ketch, you should bring better arguments.

And really, the intelligent design action network? Are you afraid to talk here or something?

Free will or predestination? What kind of person would willingly debate a thing with a thousand unintelligible positions, all relative to a presumption that only human freedom is paramount or measurable, a thing with such a plurality of explanations that inevitably only the most simplistic, idiotic views avail? Is Luther as far as you’ve come in your philosophical development? Is that why you unsuccessfully seek the last word, because you must move it onto your own limited territory, into a forum engine of co-optation? Home field advantage, eh? Bad season for Christianity, huh? Weak. If you look more carefully you’ll find that the answer to most of your questions is in the questions themselves.

You wouldn’t last a few days in some of the debates I am in right now… you don’t pay attention and/or read what people write… you see what you want to see. Another example… she’s my wife, not my girlfriend.

“You say you had to have proof. Sadly, this is the antithesis of faith. If you have proof of your god, even the slightest, then you need no faith.”

I challenge you to explain how you came up with this piece of dung. Show me how proof is the antithesis of faith. Show me where it is indicated that proof of God negates faith. Did you just make this up? The Bible clearly states that evidence of God is all around, and yet it states you also need faith. Where do you get your definition of faith that states that proof or evidence cannot occur?

Since you cannot possibly know what somebody else thinks, get of your high horse. It is a cop out to pretend you know what I am doing so you can continue your inane argument without facing what I tell you I am saying and coming up with an argument based on that. True philosophical debate takes head of the other person’s ramblings… it doesn’t define what it determines what the other person is saying to match its argument.

No statistics necessary. From experience, there are very few evangelicals in higher, graduate level academia. No offense, but it is kind of a running cliche that most of them endure mental breakdowns.”

LOL… mental breakdowns… just as I thought… from your experience… LOL… that sure is proveable. God isn’t proveable so doubt is required… even if somebody else experiences it. But your experience is fact. LOL… same ol’ s#*t… just someone else spewing it.

“in order to understand arguments for God’s existence, one must already believe; which is circular. I can think of quite a few passages that illustrate such a view. Never the less, any formal philosophical argument for God’s existence collapsed centuries ago.”

It is not a difficult trick to be able to speak philosophy without understanding it… which you are doing. Vice-versa, in order to understand arguments against God’s existence, one must already doubt; which is circular. And thank you for capitalizing God. Your last sentence is another imagining from a mind that is totally lost. If you think any formal philosophical argument collapsed centuries ago… you need to come out of your atheist box and see the light my friend… it is growing leaps and bounds.

So the kids are going to pick up their toys and leave? Fine.

Come back when you’re willing to have an adult conversation.

If you can’t take the heat, why the hell did you come to the kitchen and try to start a fire? Your lies won’t help you save face. Don’t you think your supernatural father figure will know you lied?