Do you believe in God?

[bikefreek]

to address the claim that the easter bunny might also be real...for every kid that thinks he is real i can show you one or more adults that led him to believe that way. outside of the actions of mere mortals there would be nothing to lead the child to believe there is a god...i mean easter bunny

[JustAnotherName]

doubloon

chill out man, I'm not attacking you here. But you are responding to me like a child right now and it's annoying especially when it is unwarranted.

If you heard of the FSM example than you wouldn't have gone on about the Easter bunny like you just did.

Besides, you haven't really addressed my question about polygraphs at court. So I'll fire back at you, is that the best you got?

[bikefreek]

You are ignoring the point...which is that the people that were "evil" were inspired by god, did it for god, and believe they were doing the right thing by god.

I'm getting bored with this (it's not your fault, it's the subject matter and the certain futility that comes with the subject matter.) I understand your perspective (heard it before) and where you're coming from (I just don't agree) except for the above quoted point.

I believe that the ugly s--t in history that Man's done in the name of religion can be solely blamed on the combined actions and inaction of men regardless of the excuse that they use.

To argue that it's religion's fault is like saying it's the economy's fault for the stimulus package, or that it's terrorism's fault for the Patriot Act. I honestly never thought that I would be arguing with an atheist and telling him that he's vastly over simplified things and that he's conveniently hidden the specifics behind a loosely wrapped abstract concept called religion. To me, that is just beautiful irony.

what specifics have i hidden???? people do horrible things in the name of their religious beliefs. you can try to blame it on the individuals doing the deed, but if members of the ENTIRE religion feel the same way then the problem is probabally in the teachings.

[ThePatriot]

Do you believe in Thor? How about Zeus, Bael, Vishnu, Waheguru, Tenri-O-no-Mikoto, Achiyalabopa, Ahone, Aiomun-Kondi, Antu, Awonawilona...?

No? Now you understand why I don't believe in your god.

Exactly. I find it so arrogant that people think their god or version of god is the right answer. At best, one of them is right. Those are shitty odds. I will stick to living my life by what I feel is right.

[SuperTige]

I believe in God but find myself frequently disagreeing with him on a number of different matters.
~ST

[doubloon]

to address the claim that the easter bunny might also be real...for every kid that thinks he is real i can show you one or more adults that led him to believe that way. outside of the actions of mere mortals there would be nothing to lead the child to believe there is a god...i mean easter bunny

Sigh ...

St. Nicholas actually existed so to apply your "logic" would be to erase him from the history books forever since adults often mimic his activities in the name of Santa Claus.

Either you are incapable of understanding concepts beyond the mediocre or you are bored and trolling.

Either way, your arguments appear to be limited to rhetoric and drivel which do nothing to contribute to or expand the topic so I'm bored now too.

[bikefreek]

to address the claim that the easter bunny might also be real...for every kid that thinks he is real i can show you one or more adults that led him to believe that way. outside of the actions of mere mortals there would be nothing to lead the child to believe there is a god...i mean easter bunny

Sigh ...

St. Nicholas actually existed so to apply your "logic" would be to erase him from the history books forever since adults often mimic his activities in the name of Santa Claus.

Either you are incapable of understanding concepts beyond the mediocre or you are bored and trolling.

Either way, your arguments appear to be limited to rhetoric and drivel which do nothing to contribute to or expand the topic so I'm bored now too.

Did the saint nicholas that existed fly around with magic deer and put gifts under every xmas tree all in one night?? no??? well i guess they arent the same then.

I cant believe you people are actually trying to prove god MIGHT exist by pointing to nursery rhymes... give me a break.

[bikefreek]

to address the claim that the easter bunny might also be real...for every kid that thinks he is real i can show you one or more adults that led him to believe that way. outside of the actions of mere mortals there would be nothing to lead the child to believe there is a god...i mean easter bunny

Sigh ...

St. Nicholas actually existed so to apply your "logic" would be to erase him from the history books forever since adults often mimic his activities in the name of Santa Claus.

Either you are incapable of understanding concepts beyond the mediocre or you are bored and trolling.

Either way, your arguments appear to be limited to rhetoric and drivel which do nothing to contribute to or expand the topic so I'm bored now too.

If anyone is spouting rhetoric its the people that blindly listen to the fables in ancient books. If you get bored during a conversation its a pretty good sign that you are not actually thinking about the topic which doesnt suprise me given your only real argument consists of easter bunny this and santa claus that.

to argue that something exists because no one can prove otherwise is idiotic...what other things do you blindly believe in that you have no proof of?

[libertyman777]

to argue that something exists because no one can prove otherwise is idiotic...what other things do you blindly believe in that you have no proof of?

There are actually a number of theory's out there that science accepts without being able to be proved otherwise. Namely the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. Both seem solid except for the gaps.

The authenticity of the Bible is constantly called into question but we readily accept other volumes from antiquity as valid with a great deal less "proof". Furthermore, the Science of Archeology has never disproved Scripture, quite the contrary.

http://www.provethebible.net/

There is so much evidence that establishes the validity of Scripture. But Mr. Bikefreek, please don't take this rebuttal personally, it is not. I spent a number of years serving to protect the rights of everyone to believe whatsoever they desire. It is what makes us unique in the world. My post is for those who are reading, searching or otherwise trying to make up their minds.

God Bless and Semper Fi,

Paul

[bikefreek]

to argue that something exists because no one can prove otherwise is idiotic...what other things do you blindly believe in that you have no proof of?

There are actually a number of theory's out there that science accepts without being able to be proved otherwise. Namely the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. Both seem solid except for the gaps.

The authenticity of the Bible is constantly called into question but we readily accept other volumes from antiquity as valid with a great deal less "proof". Furthermore, the Science of Archeology has never disproved Scripture, quite the contrary.

http://www.provethebible.net/

There is so much evidence that establishes the validity of Scripture. But Mr. Bikefreek, please don't take this rebuttal personally, it is not. I spent a number of years serving to protect the rights of everyone to believe whatsoever they desire. It is what makes us unique in the world. My post is for those who are reading, searching or otherwise trying to make up their minds.

God Bless and Semper Fi,

Paul

The scientific theories you cited are theories...even though they remain theories they are still base on EMPIRICAL evidence of some sort. The big bang theory is based on the FACT that the universe is expanding in all directions...logic would dictate that since it it currently getting bigger, in the past it must have been smaller. The theory of evolution is based off of natural selection something that is observable everyday in the wild. If anyone here has ANY EMPIRICAL evidence that god exists I as well as the rest of the world would love to hear it

[HammerToeJohnson]

I have no qualms about believing in God wholeheartedly (the Christian God, to be exact). I also have no qualms about saying some of the most moral and caring human beings I have ever met were/are atheists. If a man investigates the facts and comes to his conclusion, I shall respect their decision. That being said, I have always been suspicious of organized religion. Christ himself was rejected by the religious bureaucracy that existed in his time. That's not to say that all churchgoers are wrongheaded, certainly not. But, there exists a very strong tendency for any man-made entity to become corrupted over time. All too often do the examples of Catholic sexual abuse and witch burning enter into the discussion of God. This is unfortunately the case because the religious bureaucracy of our time claims to accurately represent the teachings of the Lord, just as it did in Christ's time. An analogous example would be the ever-evolving interpretation of The US Constitution. How far have we strayed from the original intent of that document? I have spent a good portion of my life learning the Hebrew, Greek and Semitic languages and studying biblical archaeology; I have only attended church services a handful of times in 27 years.

[BWT]

When can an organism go from being a single-cell organism to a multi-cell organism. They can't... they simply can not.

Demonstrably false. Unicellular to multicellular evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory. See here for a lay persons explanation:

http://pleion.blogspot.com/2008/11/watc ... efore.html

And here is the link to the abstract of the paper:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/k ... 2/00171545

You are using the 'argument from personal incredulity,' a logical fallacy. " I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true."

Recall that Chlorella is better able to utilize the nutrients in the environment when they are single cells. Thus, the colonies of tens to hundreds of cells soon disappeared, replaced by colonies of of only eight cells. This seems to be the optimal size for uptake of nutrients and defense against Ochromonas. When Boraas et al. removed the predator from the environment, Chlorella colonies continued to make multicellular offspring. However, with the selection pressure to be large gone, the unicellular Chlorella took over again.

You isolated one experiment, and honestly, they reverted back to single cell. Fascinating article though.

I wonder if it wasn't selective pressure, but more of starvation that the larger multi-cellulars died out? They became the Apex of the environment, and it couldn't support the growth to mature?

Let's examine another gap.

These initially consisted of aggregates of tens to hundreds on Chlorella cells, adhering to each other. Their sheer size prevented the predator from eating them, and thus the multicellular Chlorella was fitter than the unicellular ones, and as a result the unicellular Chlorella all but disappeared. Multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes.

Another gap. They adhered to one another to avoid being eaten... much like a flock of birds, or a school of fish... Did they truly become one individual...

Recall that Chlorella is better able to utilize the nutrients in the environment when they are single cells. Thus, the colonies of tens to hundreds of cells soon disappeared, replaced by colonies of of only eight cells.

So let's examine the English Language, shall we?'

Colony

a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colony

It seems, that they adhered to one another in a large group... it's unclear if it was an actual single being, but... unable to sustain, the strain died... if it truly was another strain, again, unclear.

The vernacular they use is ambiguous.

Let's examine the second article.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/k ... 2/00171545

Another example of a Predatory flagellate stimulating adhesion and colonization in a predator/prey relationship, then the subsequent break down of the organization. The first legitimate reply I've ever gotten, honestly, hats off to you, but, still... even the initial article has holes. I mean, all the quotes I took from that article.

Give me a White Paper on it, someone had to get their doctorate on trying to prove single cell to multi-cellular.

If there was an anomally that found a way to exploit a food source that single celled animals cannot then it would be more than possible

You don't believe in God, but you take Science's word for it? You give science a pass?

uuhhhh did you fail biology class? yes its true a single large cell cannot survive but it has to do with surface area to volume not the time it takes to get to the "organs" of a cell. This is the entire reason for multicell organisms...in your attempt to disprove the evolution of multicell organisms you described the exact cause of their evolution.

Really? Enlighten me, honestly, give me more information. I'm talking about the gap that they couldn't make, at least the other guy presented substance.

easy the less complex and specialized an organism is the harder it is to eradicate...its the KISS principle applied in biology

... Seriously? C'mon. You've got better then that. You have to.

youre right cells divide and when they divide they go from something as fragile as a human embrio to a full grown man...what has a better chance of survival?

You're talking about the origin of a being, at a very low level developmental state, that's already made the alleged leap. Just because a single cell organism is small, and a single sperm and egg are small when they meet, doesn't mean that they're the same.

Look forward to the replies.

Good article, interesting.

ETA: Also the book, the second link, the reason it's a theory on the possible origin of multi cell organisms, in that type of environment, is because they couldn't make it happen.

I think it's crap that they say multi-cellular then say colony. Ants work together, Bees work together, Ants use themselves as bridges in certain functions, that doesn't make them a single entity...

[bikefreek]

When can an organism go from being a single-cell organism to a multi-cell organism. They can't... they simply can not.

Demonstrably false. Unicellular to multicellular evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory. See here for a lay persons explanation:

http://pleion.blogspot.com/2008/11/watc ... efore.html

And here is the link to the abstract of the paper:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/k ... 2/00171545

You are using the 'argument from personal incredulity,' a logical fallacy. " I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true."

Recall that Chlorella is better able to utilize the nutrients in the environment when they are single cells. Thus, the colonies of tens to hundreds of cells soon disappeared, replaced by colonies of of only eight cells. This seems to be the optimal size for uptake of nutrients and defense against Ochromonas. When Boraas et al. removed the predator from the environment, Chlorella colonies continued to make multicellular offspring. However, with the selection pressure to be large gone, the unicellular Chlorella took over again.

You isolated one experiment, and honestly, they reverted back to single cell. Fascinating article though.

I wonder if it wasn't selective pressure, but more of starvation that the larger multi-cellulars died out? They became the Apex of the environment, and it couldn't support the growth to mature?

Let's examine another gap.

These initially consisted of aggregates of tens to hundreds on Chlorella cells, adhering to each other. Their sheer size prevented the predator from eating them, and thus the multicellular Chlorella was fitter than the unicellular ones, and as a result the unicellular Chlorella all but disappeared. Multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes.

Another gap. They adhered to one another to avoid being eaten... much like a flock of birds, or a school of fish... Did they truly become one individual...

Recall that Chlorella is better able to utilize the nutrients in the environment when they are single cells. Thus, the colonies of tens to hundreds of cells soon disappeared, replaced by colonies of of only eight cells.

So let's examine the English Language, shall we?'

Colony

a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colony

It seems, that they adhered to one another in a large group... it's unclear if it was an actual single being, but... unable to sustain, the strain died... if it truly was another strain, again, unclear.

The vernacular they use is ambiguous.

Let's examine the second article.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/k ... 2/00171545

Another example of a Predatory flagellate stimulating adhesion and colonization in a predator/prey relationship, then the subsequent break down of the organization. The first legitimate reply I've ever gotten, honestly, hats off to you, but, still... even the initial article has holes. I mean, all the quotes I took from that article.

Give me a White Paper on it, someone had to get their doctorate on trying to prove single cell to multi-cellular.

If there was an anomally that found a way to exploit a food source that single celled animals cannot then it would be more than possible

You don't believe in God, but you take Science's word for it? You give science a pass? science has evidence...something no one can provide about god

uuhhhh did you fail biology class? yes its true a single large cell cannot survive but it has to do with surface area to volume not the time it takes to get to the "organs" of a cell. This is the entire reason for multicell organisms...in your attempt to disprove the evolution of multicell organisms you described the exact cause of their evolution.

Really? Enlighten me, honestly, give me more information. I'm talking about the gap that they couldn't make, at least the other guy presented substance. what is this "gap" you are referring too?

easy the less complex and specialized an organism is the harder it is to eradicate...its the KISS principle applied in biology

... Seriously? C'mon. You've got better then that. You have to. And you have to come up with a better arguement against it other than "...seriously? C'mon"

youre right cells divide and when they divide they go from something as fragile as a human embrio to a full grown man...what has a better chance of survival?

You're talking about the origin of a being, at a very low level developmental state, that's already made the alleged leap. Just because a single cell organism is small, and a single sperm and egg are small when they meet, doesn't mean that they're the same. uuuuhhh actually the sperm and the egg are both single celled...and they combine...and from those two single cells grows complex life...so you tell me, how do they not represent how single cells merge to form multi celled organisms...Look forward to the replies.

Good article, interesting.

ETA: Also the book, the second link, the reason it's a theory on the possible origin of multi cell organisms, in that type of environment, is because they couldn't make it happen.

I think it's crap that they say multi-cellular then say colony. Ants work together, Bees work together, Ants use themselves as bridges in certain functions, that doesn't make them a single entity...

[BWT]

uuuuhhh actually the sperm and the egg are both single celled...and they combine...and from those two single cells grows complex life...so you tell me, how do they not represent how single cells merge to form multi celled organisms...

One Fertilizes the other and it develops, that's it. Also, embryo's are multicellular from the get go. Again, they're the Omega (Multi Cellular being), we're talking about how single cellular beings go from being single cell to multi cell, not colonize, not flock, but grow into a single being.

science has evidence...something no one can provide about god

We're discussing the evidence, by the way, evidence? What evidence do you have that God doesn't exist? Humor me.

what is this "gap" you are referring too?

I don't think I beat around the bush in my post. I only posted four reasons why I thought organisms could not go from single cellular to multicellular.

And you have to come up with a better arguement against it other than "...seriously? C'mon"

Atleast they offered *A* argument, not rhetoric.

"You can't prove god exists." "You can't prove he doesn't." Could go on all day, I just noticed a gap in evolution, and wondered how the "first step" came into existence.

We can discuss atmospheres and gases form next, and how the big bang theory worked, and other stuff, other than taking this argument to a personal debate of snide remarks, and egotistical snippets of opinions.

This thread could be limitless, attempt to be a learning experience, truly, not just a theological debate. I spend my time on the internet, and I spend a lot on it... trying to learn.

Save the attitude for the next religious person that happens to post, I'd like to actually discuss the science of it.

ETA: Let's pretense another interesting discussion.

Say the big bang theory did happen as subscribed too, how would anything survive the immense heat? I mean let's talk about Nuclear explosions, vaporization of tissue, etc, let's let it all hang out. This has potential!

What truly is the atmosphere? Fascinating.

ETA 2: Here's a wild thought, Where did the single cell organism originate?

How?

Look forward to another stimulating response.

[Selectedmarksman]

You can't prove god's existence can't be tested in the realm of science. Just because it hasn't been done before that doesn't mean it's impossible.

You could use a polygraph to validate I believe I am telling the truth about being happy. Feel free to refute the accuracy of the polygraph with TV science.

By definition the supernatural is outside the realm of science. If such a 'God' were subject to qualitative and quantitative scientific analysis you'd be in Star Trek: The Motion Picture territory. That is, it wouldn't be 'God'. You can't have it both ways.

[libertyman777]

The scientific theories you cited are theories...even though they remain theories they are still base on EMPIRICAL evidence of some sort. The big bang theory is based on the FACT that the universe is expanding in all directions...logic would dictate that since it it currently getting bigger, in the past it must have been smaller. The theory of evolution is based off of natural selection something that is observable everyday in the wild. If anyone here has ANY EMPIRICAL evidence that god exists I as well as the rest of the world would love to hear it

"Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_empirical_evidence

It is widely accepted that the universe is expanding, and I believe that as well. They can measure it and it is fact. What goes unanswered with the moment just before the expansion. Science cannot explain this.

Natural selection versus adaptation. A species simply doesn't become another species and that's what has to happen. No one has ever witnessed this either.

Look, the religion(s) of Secular Humanism, Atheism, etc. have to deny the existence of God. To admit that there is a Holy Being that will require a day of reckoning means that there is a right and wrong, that's it's not just "relative morality" that applies to each situation. If a person believes in the rule of law then that in itself begs the question of the Divine.

Here's the kicker. The Bible teaches in Romans 12:3 that each is given the measure of faith.

The atheist is exercising faith to anchor himself in his belief. God has given us free will and the means by which to exercise this universal gift. Some to life, some to destruction. It's just the way it is.

[Selectedmarksman]

I have no qualms about believing in God wholeheartedly (the Christian God, to be exact). I also have no qualms about saying some of the most moral and caring human beings I have ever met were/are atheists. If a man investigates the facts and comes to his conclusion, I shall respect their decision. That being said, I have always been suspicious of organized religion. Christ himself was rejected by the religious bureaucracy that existed in his time. That's not to say that all churchgoers are wrongheaded, certainly not. But, there exists a very strong tendency for any man-made entity to become corrupted over time. All too often do the examples of Catholic sexual abuse and witch burning enter into the discussion of God. This is unfortunately the case because the religious bureaucracy of our time claims to accurately represent the teachings of the Lord, just as it did in Christ's time. An analogous example would be the ever-evolving interpretation of The US Constitution. How far have we strayed from the original intent of that document? I have spent a good portion of my life learning the Hebrew, Greek and Semitic languages and studying biblical archaeology; I have only attended church services a handful of times in 27 years.

These are the words of a wise man. Though I am not Christian, and am Taoist actually, there are Christians I respect. HammerToeJohnson's outlook is exactly the sort of thing that earns it. The vast majority of Catholic people I've known are good people, but I currently have issue with anyone who continues to display loyalty to the wordly establishment that is the Catholic Church now that an ex-Nazi, pedophile protector is Pope. If there is a God, and it is one of the Christian Gods, I suspect he would actually favor those who abandoned such a church over those who clung to it.

I support good people of all Faiths. I do, however, get testy when anyone of any faith tries to muddy up science.

[BWT]

As for another reason I'm not a big fan of legalistic power building organizations like huge churches, etc.

One doesn't have to look far. The Church heirachy crucified Jesus. I mean what else needs to be said?

He was a threat to them and the doctrine at the time.

Fascinating when you look that someone took that ideology, turned it and created large power bases of supporters, some do a lot of good, honestly, I've seen a lot of churches do a lot of good, really have.

But, there's always bad apples out there. Unfortunately.

Back to the science side of it.

I'm actually on the church hunt these last few year or two.

But another topic.

Let's get over this single cell to multi-cell hurdle, if we can't... then let's discuss big-bang theory in depth, I'm interested to hear how one could conclude that any organic substance could survive that.

[doubloon]

You can't prove god's existence can't be tested in the realm of science. Just because it hasn't been done before that doesn't mean it's impossible.

You could use a polygraph to validate I believe I am telling the truth about being happy. Feel free to refute the accuracy of the polygraph with TV science.

By definition the supernatural is outside the realm of science. If such a 'God' were subject to qualitative and quantitative scientific analysis you'd be in Star Trek: The Motion Picture territory. That is, it wouldn't be 'God'. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to have anything "both ways".

For all we know what people call "god" is an alien or a race of aliens.

And technically supernatural is not "beyond the realm of science", it is beyond the observable universe. As is an alternate universe, which is still in the realm of science.

[bikefreek]

Ok for the record if you believe in god...define it... what is god? If you believe in it you must have some idea what you believe it to be.

[Selectedmarksman]

"Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_empirical_evidence

It is widely accepted that the universe is expanding, and I believe that as well. They can measure it and it is fact. What goes unanswered with the moment just before the expansion. Science cannot explain this. Correction, Science cannot currently explain this. Nor could it explain where the center of thought was in the body, what blood was for, why the stars appear to move in the sky, or where life comes from in the immediate sense (google spontaneous generation) in the past. Science is a process through which greater understanding is sought. Scientists don't proclaim to know everything. If they did, Science would stop.

Natural selection versus adaptation. A species simply doesn't become another species and that's what has to happen. No one has ever witnessed this either. This is either a misrepresentation or, more likely as I know libertyman777's not a bad dude, a misunderstanding of evolution. There is no sharp line where one species becomes another. A lizard does not give birth to a cat, or any such nonsense. Tiny mutations accumulate over time. Most are unfavorable and are selected out (the animal fails to reproduce viable young). Some are successful. When such mutations are reproductively isolated, they can accumulate to substantial changes such that when two members of the different populates breed they can no longer produce viable young. This is when we say speciation has occurred. And yes, this has been observed. Google 'observed instances of speciation'.

Look, the religion(s) of Secular Humanism, Atheism, etc. have to deny the existence of God. To admit that there is a Holy Being that will require a day of reckoning means that there is a right and wrong, that's it's not just "relative morality" that applies to each situation. If a person believes in the rule of law then that in itself begs the question of the Divine. Let's rephrase this: "Look, the religion of Christianity has to deny the existence of Mithra, Thor, Amon, Cthuhlu, et. al. It is a disservice to define a religion by what it is not rather than what it is. Moreover, it is not accurate to classify Atheism or Secular Humanism as religions. Sometimes they can be. There are Atheistic religions. That is, a religion in which there are spiritual beliefs and perhaps belief in an afterlife, reincarnation, etc. but there is no belief in a deity. Taoism counts here. Secular Humanism is a philosophy, though.

Here's the kicker. The Bible teaches in Romans 12:3 that each is given the measure of faith.
If it's not offensive, let me pretend to be a Christian on this one, albeit a heretic by most standards. Romans, and all of Paul's Epistles, piss me off. The majority of modern organized Christian Religions base their dogma on these Epistles. Here's my problem with that: Of all the Apostles' writings and teachings, why Paul? Paul never knew Jesus in his lifetime. He claims to have had a vision of Jesus, who was not in the flesh at the time, after Jesus' resurrection. Also, Jesus chose not to reveal himself to anyone but Saul/Paul in that instance (Acts 9:3-9)? That doesn't match Jesus' other behavior, nor the behavior of one who came to save all. I find it much more probable that Paul, formerly Saul and a known persecutor of Christians, found a way to utterly screw up a young religion he so violently despised.
The atheist is exercising faith to anchor himself in his belief. God has given us free will and the means by which to exercise this universal gift. Some to life, some to destruction. It's just the way it is.

Again, by definition, an A-theist is one who is absent the belief in a God or Gods. It is not that they actively deny the belief in one or more Gods. Religious studies is a bit of a hobby of mine but I have no illusion that I am even aware of all the Gods I don't believe in. There are cultures and religions I've never heard of. As such, I am not exercising faith to anchor myself against the belief in some God or Gods I've never even heard of. No more am I exercising faith to be absent in any belief in deities I am familiar with. I expend no more effort to be without belief in any one of the various Christian Gods than I do to be without belief in real Pokemon.

One can never be sure how text will be interpreted in discussions such as these, so to conclude I am not trying to 'disprove' anything you said or shake your own faith. That is neither polite nor productive. My goal is to illustrate the difficulty that atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu, etc. people have in communicating with devout Christians. When your starting position is that you are right and anyone who disagrees is merely in active, effortful denial of the truth then there is no room for discussion and or mutual understanding. I can think of no better example for such close-minded, dialogue-killing statements as "It's just the way it is."

Just for fun, let us suppose the Bible is 100% correct and that really is "just the way it is." How did Judas die?

[BWT]

Ok for the record if you believe in god...define it... what is god? If you believe in it you must have some idea what you believe it to be.

C'mon now, we're still proving science. I genuinely was interested in that discussion. You see I too have questioned, like I said, the answers have always been there.

I take the Bible at what it is, honestly, I believe in God, I believe the bible. I believe he is the all knowing, all seeing, omni-present God.

Question... and I'm not being smart, and honestly, if you want to reply in P.M., because I'd rather have complete honesty rather than another sharp edged debate.

Why don't you believe in God?

I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

[HammerToeJohnson]

These are the words of a wise man. Though I am not Christian, and am Taoist actually, there are Christians I respect. HammerToeJohnson's outlook is exactly the sort of thing that earns it. The vast majority of Catholic people I've known are good people, but I currently have issue with anyone who continues to display loyalty to the wordly establishment that is the Catholic Church now that an ex-Nazi, pedophile protector is Pope. If there is a God, and it is one of the Christian Gods, I suspect he would actually favor those who abandoned such a church over those who clung to it.

I support good people of all Faiths. I do, however, get testy when anyone of any faith tries to muddy up science.

The larger the organization becomes, the more skewed the doctrine. The history of the early popes is damn scandalous (though I do enjoy reading about it). I feel bad for Catholics, as I know plenty that are far better people than I, but they catch hell for the different scandals that have come about. I'm far less tolerant of people who do not respect the life and property of others.

[Selectedmarksman]

You can't prove god's existence can't be tested in the realm of science. Just because it hasn't been done before that doesn't mean it's impossible.

You could use a polygraph to validate I believe I am telling the truth about being happy. Feel free to refute the accuracy of the polygraph with TV science.

By definition the supernatural is outside the realm of science. If such a 'God' were subject to qualitative and quantitative scientific analysis you'd be in Star Trek: The Motion Picture territory. That is, it wouldn't be 'God'. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to have anything "both ways".

For all we know what people call "god" is an alien or a race of aliens.

And technically supernatural is not "beyond the realm of science", it is beyond the observable universe. As is an alternate universe, which is still in the realm of science.

I'll grant you that what people call "God" could be an alien or an alien race. As I do not worship said God, it makes no difference to me.

As to the supernatural issue, I continue to maintain that by definition that which is super-natural is beyond the natural, and nature is by definition the scope of scientific inquiry. I have read that some physicists are speculating about the existence of other universes but I do not see this as being an unnatural proposition. This is less an effort to be argumentative than an effort to be clear on the language we are using. As I said before, I've no problem granting that 'God' is an alien if that reconciles the supernatural issue. It would create certain problems for believers, though.

[Selectedmarksman]

Ok for the record if you believe in god...define it... what is god? If you believe in it you must have some idea what you believe it to be.

C'mon now, we're still proving science. I genuinely was interested in that discussion. You see I too have questioned, like I said, the answers have always been there.

I take the Bible at what it is, honestly, I believe in God, I believe the bible. I believe he is the all knowing, all seeing, omni-present God.

Question... and I'm not being smart, and honestly, if you want to reply in P.M., because I'd rather have complete honesty rather than another sharp edged debate.

Why don't you believe in God?

I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

My interest is piqued, too. Feel free to shoot me some PM's. I'll be hitting the sack here in a minute but we can continue over days at leisure. I didn't mean to but in, but whenever I hear "Why don't you believe in God?" I get very curious. It begs the question of why one does not believe in any other gods, or in any of the other variants of your own god (the god of the Hebrews in whom Jesus believed, the god of Islam that recognizes Jesus as a prophet, the god of the Mormons that say Jesus was not only resurrected but came to the Americas to preach, etc.). Which particular flavor of the Christian God are you inquiring the reasons for our not believing in?